Radio Replies Vol 2 - Catholic Apologetics Online

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

That is not a fact. Such buildings have to be built somewhere; and it is easy to term as the best whatever blocks of land they are built upon--after the event. 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 longsighted 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Therefore, it abstracts from all national considerations.

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.

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."

That is so.

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.

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."

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.

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."

Correct. The Roman Church is not only One, Holy, and Catholic. She is also Apostolic.

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 teaches 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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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 Cerularius. 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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since God sent His only-begotten Son into this world, and thatSon established the Catholic Church, sending it to teach allnations, it is certainly necessary to be taught by that Church ifone desires to save his soul. Christ said, "If a man will nothear the Church, let him be as the heathen." Matt. XVIII.,17.

I would not make such an assertion without due qualifications.The Catholic Church, of course, stands foursquare for the teachingsof the Gospel. She accepts absolutely all that Christ says. Andconsequently, she accepts the words of Christ recorded in Matt.XVIII., 17, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be asthe heathen." But to whom does the Church apply those words?She applies them only to those who clearly realize that theCatholic Church is the one true Church, yet who refuse submissionand obedience to it. Therefore, she does not regard as heathens thevast majority of non-Catholics, for they have never clearlyrealized her truth. Full allowance is made for sincere yet mistakenpeople.

God has declared the Catholic religion to be necessary. And onewho becomes aware of that must become a Catholic if he wishes tosave his soul. But you adopt a peculiar position. You say you havenever bothered about religion. Then it is most necessary that youbegin to give your attention to the question. For example, you wentto the bother of learning to write. You have bothered to learn theuse of various things which are necessary to your earthly welfare.You know what those things are for. But surely it is man's dutyto know what he himself is for! And a man cannot know that unlesshe knows the fundamental truth concerning his origin, his nature,his destiny, and the moral law. The teachings of the true religionalone can provide the necessary knowledge, and a man is obliged tofind that true religion. And you are robbed of excuse by the factthat a vast international Church like the Catholic Church is inthis world, claiming to speak with the authority of God. Confrontedwith such a fact, every reasonable man would say, "Such claimsare rather tremendous. At least, I'd better look into them andsee whether there is any justification for them." One whowould note the fact, and simply not bother about it, is violatingreason, and has only himself to blame if he wrecks his eternaldestiny.

That particular text does not say that non-Catholics will besaved. It might avail if Christ had never said anything else. ButHe said much else. And whosoever really believes in Christ mustaccept every single thing He taught, and try to fulfill all that Hecommanded. For example, He said, "Unless your justice aboundmore than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enterinto the kingdom of heaven." Matt. V., 20. One could believein 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 universalsense to the text you have quoted. They will be saved who sobelieve in Christ that they are prepared to accept and to fulfillall the conditions prescribed by Him.

The same Christ who uttered those wonderful words also said,"If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathenand the publican." It is necessary then that those who believein Christ should hear and obey His Church. And you must askyourself whether you hear and obey any Church as your teacher andruler in religious matters. Also you must ask yourself what ChurchChrist had in mind when He spoke. If you say that it is notnecessary to obey any Church, you do not believe Christ's word.And in that case you cannot be ranked amongst those included in thepromise, "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish."The Church Christ had in mind was the Catholic Church; and once aman adverts to the fact, he must join her if he wishes to save hissoul.

St. Paul was speaking there of the Catholic Church in whichnational and earthly differences are no obstacle to membership.Insofar as we are members of the Catholic Church, all otherCatholics are our brethren. In our mutual faith there is neitherGentile nor Jew, neither German nor Frenchman, nor Italian, norIrishman, nor American. We Catholics are all one in Christ Jesus,belonging to His mystical body, the Catholic Church. But you, as aProtestant, do not belong to the same Church as Catholics. Youshould. The text you quote and which says that we should all be onecannot possibly justify our continued separation and your remainingoutside the Catholic Church. In reality, it is Protestantism whichsays that there are Jews and Gentiles, Englishmen and Germans,Dutch and Norwegians, for it permits religion to differ accordingto nationality. Where Catholicism has one religion for all nations,Protestantism sanctions as many religions as there are nations, andeven variations and divisions within the one nation. The text youquote is really suicidal for Protestantism, and proves thenecessity of Catholicism.

He is not serving Christ as Christ demands. But if he beignorant of the full teaching of Christ through no fault of hisown, he may be trying wholeheartedly to serve Christ, littlerealizing how mistaken are his ideas.

Since the Catholic Church is the one true Church to which Godwills men to belong, it is impossible to hold out equal hopes ofsalvation to those who reject that Church and deprive themselves ofall the helps she can give. And if some of my statements disheartenthose outside the Church sufficiently to make them take aninterest, inquire, and discover the truth, leading eventually totheir becoming Catholics, I have done them a very great serviceindeed.

The Protestant Churches originally insisted that the Bible wasthe Word of God; but they were based on the various senses theirfounders read into the Bible and declared to be the meaningintended by God. But the Catholic Church, although she insists thatthe Bible is indeed the Word of God, does not base her positionupon the Bible. She is not so foolish as to say, "Believe theBible to be inspired because I tell you it is; and believe in mebecause the Bible, which speaks of me, is inspired." Thatwould be a vicious circle. Of course, if a man already believes theBible to be the inspired Word of God, the Catholic Church can beginfrom that in her discussions with him, and show that the very Wordof God which he accepts justifies her claims. But if a man does notaccept the inspiration of the Bible, then the Catholic Church doesnot appeal to it as inspired. She will justify herself on thegrounds of history and reason alone. Only after the man hasacknowledged the reasonable character of her claims, and with thehelp of God's grace has attained to faith in her as the Churchof God, will he be prepared to accept her teaching that the Bibleis the inspired Word of God. With such a man the Catholic approachdiffers radically from that of the Protestant Churches.

You must not imagine that there could be anything in theCatholic doctrines opposed to the teachings of the Bible. We do notbelieve that the Catholic Church is founded on the Bible as if menwere given the Bible, and then constructed the Catholic Church forthemselves according to the ideas they thought the Bible tocontain. We believe that the Catholic Church was founded personallyby Christ, who built it upon the Apostles, sending them to preachHis Gospel and propagate the Christian religion throughout theworld. And it was Christ personally who guaranteed theinfallibility of the Apostles and of their successors, so that theChurch would be unable to err in her official teachings. Since theChurch is infallible and the Bible is the inspired Word of God,there will never be a conflict between the two. You must keep inmind, of course, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God in thesense in which God intended all that is written in its pages; notin any false sense which some non-infallible reader desires toimpose upon it.

That is not true. In fact the Catholic Church grants special spiritual favors to those who will read Holy Scripture daily.

He condemned the circulation of inaccurate translations by Protestant Societies; and the Protestant principle that all should read Scripture for themselves, interpreting it according to their own private judgment, however little qualified they might be to arrive at a sound judgment. He gave as his reason that different readers would arrive at different conclusions, and that the ideal given by St. Paul would be destroyed. For St. Paul wrote, "I beseech you that you all speak the same thing, being of the same mind and the same judgment." 1 Cor. I., 10. And the Pope was right. The chaos in doctrinal beliefs amongst Protestants is experimental proof of it. And Pope Pius VII. justly quoted St. Augustine's words, "Heresies would not have arisen unless men had read good Scripture badly, and rashly asserted their own mistakes to be the truth." But this does not prove that Rome is hostile to the Bible. The Catholic Church most carefully preserved the Bible through the ages--a most foolish procedure did she regard the Bible as evil. In fact, her solicitude for the correct understanding of the Bible, and for its integrity, is obviously dictated by a deep reverence for the Word of God.

They did so for exactly the same reasons as Pius VII. Catholics believe in a teaching Church. Protestants believe in the reading of the Bible, and its interpretation as each one thinks fit. And this idea is the mainspring of Protestant Societies for the multiplication of Bibles in all languages. And what is the result? We see innumerable Protestant divisions, with many radical differences even within the same sects! Where is the consistency which is the hall-mark of truth? Many, too, are drifting from belief in the Bible altogether, openly denying its value; and the Catholic Church now has to defend it against the very ones who accused her of hostility towards it. It is Protestantism that has proved to be the real enemy of the Bible, not Catholicism.

Yes. The Protestant Bible omits several Books of the Old Testament which are contained in the Catholic Bible. It omits the Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the two Books of Machabees, and various sections of other Books. Moreover, in those sections of the Bible which the Protestant Version has retained, there are many mistranslations.

Yes. As soon as Henry VIII. broke away from the Catholic Church in 1534 and established the Church of England under his own supremacy, Cranmer ordered an English translation to be made. The Bible had been translated into English long before this, but he wanted his own special translation. In 1539 the resultant Protestant translation was published, and called the "Great Bible." In the same year also there was published a Version by Richard Taverner. In 1560 another English translation was published at Geneva, to be known as the "Geneva Bible." As these translations revealed many errors, in 1568 a revised edition was published and called the "Bishops' Bible." This Bible was reprinted in 1572 with many corrections and amendments, and called "Matthew Parker's Bible." In 1611 the "King James' Bible," or what is usually called the "Authorized Version" was published; but even this Version was corrected in 1683, 1769, and 1806. Critics, however, pointed out many errors still in the "Authorized Version," and in 1885 a "Revised Version" was completed which contains over 35,000 alterations from the "Authorized Version."

The Books of the Old Testament contained in the Catholic Canon are those contained in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible--a translation made at Alexandria, in Egypt, by the Jews residing there. This translation was made during the three centuries before the birth of Christ. The Jews, even of Palestine, accepted the Septuagint Canon, or list of Books, and our Lord Himself used it in conversing with them. The Jews began to deny its authenticity only about a century after Christ because they could not resist the arguments drawn from it and used against them by the Christians. They therefore said that it was a bad translation; that it did not agree with the Hebrew text; and they rejected it. But the use the Jews themselves had made of it for nearly four hundred years rendered their rejection of it too late. And their motives, of course, are evident. Their interest was not critical, but polemical.

When the Protestant reformers abandoned the Catholic Church, they adopted the same policy as the Jews had adopted against the early Christians, and tried to cast doubt upon the Catholic Versions of Scripture. They too, therefore, rejected the Septuagint Canon, and accepted the current Hebrew copies of the Old Testament Books. The Hebrew manuscripts omitted several of the Books contained in the Septuagint, and the Protestants therefore followed suit.

Christ and the Apostles used both the Hebrew Palestinian Canon and the Greek Septuagint Canon. Both were familiar to, and were accepted at that time by the Jews.

They quoted most often from the Greek Septuagint. In fact, of some 350 quotations, nearly 300 are taken from the Septuagint. In his "Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures," Thomas Hartwell Horne, a Protestant writer, says that the New Testament writers had to quote from the Greek Septuagint because many for whom they wrote were ignorant of Hebrew, whereas the Greek Version was generally known and read. If the Septuagint was erroneous, and its Canon false, then far from quoting from it, the Apostles should have denounced it, and warned Christians not to use it, but to use exclusively the Palestinian Canon. The Apostles did not do so. They sanctioned the use of the Canon accepted by the Catholic Church and rejected by the Protestant reformers.

We do not say that they are of no value. And it is certain that, on the whole, they are correct translations. But both Versions omit complete Books from the Old Testament, and both are very imperfect translations, on the admissions of scholars amongst Protestants themselves. The Rev. Frank Ballard, in his book "Which Bible to Read" urges Protestants to use the "Revised Version," and not the "Authorized Version." On page 23 of his book he says that an honest answer admits the imperfections of the "Authorized Version" on the following points--(1) It is based on a faulty text; (2) Words are given wrong meanings; (3) Archaic expressions obscure the sense; (4) Grammatical errors abound; (5) The sacred writers are misrepresented. He rightly says therefore that the "Revised Version" is a great improvement; but Protestant scholars agree that a further revision will have to be made. And it is to be noted that the various corrections of the Protestant Version have been in the direction of closer harmony with the Catholic Douay Version.

It is simply the English translation of the Latin Vulgate translation from the Hebrew and Greek made by St. Jerome in the fourth century. This English translation was made in France between the years 1582 and 1610 by five Oxford scholars who were in charge of the English Ecclesiastical College for the training of Catholic priests at Douay and Rheims. Their names were Allen, Bristoe, Martin, Worthington, and Reynolds.

Not in every respect. It is certainly a true translation of what is known as the Latin Vulgate. At the time of the Reformation many translations of Scripture from various sources were being spread through different countries, translations often inadequate and in many places positively erroneous. The Council of Trent, therefore, in 1546, sought to avoid all confusion amongst Catholics at least by definitely settling what Version they were to use. The result was a decree selecting and authorizing the Latin Vulgate, or correct translations of that Vulgate. As a matter of obedience to the authority of their Church, Catholics must use this official Version. But, apart from discipline, what is the value of the Vulgate, of which the Douay Bible is a translation? Is the Vulgate itself in perfect accord with the originals? The Catholic Church does not say so. She guarantees that the Vulgate is certainly substantially correct, insofar as it does not differ from the originals in such a way as to lead to any doctrinal error. It is possible that some individual text in the originals may be missing from the Vulgate. It is possible for certain texts in the Vulgate to differ from the originals either in their location, or in their grammatical form. It is also possible for an individual text to have crept into the Vulgate which did not exist in the originals, though never any text which could lead to wrong doctrine. To sum up: Catholics are obliged by virtue of obedience to use the Vulgate--of which the Douay Version is an English translation; and the Catholic Church guarantees the substantial conformity of the Vulgate with the originals so that it must certainly be held to be a sound source of Christian doctrine.

They read the Bible with the conviction that any sense whichwould be opposed to the express teaching of the Catholic Churchwould undoubtedly be an erroneous interpretation. And they knowthat their Church alone is the only ultimate and infallibleinterpreter of its pages. Individual readers are ever liable to bemistaken; but the Catholic Church cannot fall into error in anyexpress definitions concerning the contents of Sacred Scripture.Our conviction is that God confided the inspired writings to theguardianship of a living and infallible Church. The written pagescannot explain themselves. The living voice of an authenticinterpreter is necessary. And God has provided that in the CatholicChurch.

How many men have the capacity to read and understand the law ofour country? An ordinary man might manage some of the easier andsimpler laws; but highly trained lawyers could wrangle for weeksover individual laws, and even then differ as to their rightinterpretation. Yet even though the average man could fullyunderstand human legislation, the Bible is God's revelation ofa supernatural order of truth far deeper than the product of humanthinking; and conflicting conclusions are proof that men have notmanaged to understand it.

Not always by them. Priests have made mistakes again and againin the interpretation of Scripture. In many cases the only reallysafe guide is the authentic ruling of the Catholic Church, to whichpriests and laity alike must submit. The ordinary priests do notconstitute the teaching authority of the Church. The Bishops collectively and in union with the Pope constitute theauthoritative Catholic teaching body. And their guidance is oftenneeded, even in what would seem to be most obvious. For example,the few words, "This is my body," seem clear enough. Yetmen have proposed a dozen conflicting interpretations of thosewords!

To that I must say that even God could not make written words soclear that no one could doubt their meaning. But the fault is noton God's side. It is due to the limitations of men. I havestudied Aristotelian philosophy for years, and have taught thatsubject. Whose fault would it be if I could not write a treatise onthe metaphysics of Aristotle totally devoid of obscurity for aclass of children whose ages ranged from eight to ten years old?The fault would lie in the lack of capacity in the children. Andthe distance between the supernatural mysteries of revelation andthe highest natural wisdom is infinitely greater than between themetaphysics of Aristotle and the mind of an untrained child.

No. The establishing of a teaching Church was not a consequenceof the obscurity of Scripture, as if God had really intended theBible to be the guide of men, but found that it would not work, andthen decided to establish the Church. Scripture was never intendedto be the final guide of men. God primarily intended to have a bodyof men appointed to teach in His name. Thus, in the Old Law, Hesays, "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and theyshall seek the law at his mouth." As long as the Old Lawobliged, Christ referred the people to that authority. In Matt.XXIII., 2, He says, "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten onthe chair of Moses. All things whatsoever they shall say to you,observe and do." In the New Law He substituted the Apostolicbody and their successors as teachers in His name. Some years afterthe Catholic Church had commenced her work of teaching mankind, asecondary record of some of the events of Christ's life, and ofsome of His teachings and of those of the Apostles was made. Thatsecondary record is contained in the New Testament; and itscollected Books are the "family papers" of the CatholicChurch. She owns them, and alone has the right to give theauthentic interpretation of their meaning.

That Article says: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man." But that Article is itself quite unscriptural! The last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning our Lord's work is contained in Scripture. St. Paul tells us that much of Christian teaching is contained in oral traditions. Scripture tells us also that the Church must teach all nations whatsoever Christ taught the Apostles. He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means belief in the infallibility of his own judgment--which is not belief in the authority of Christ. The Protestant rule of faith is incomplete, is most uncertain, and has led to hundreds of conflicting sects. The Catholic rule of faith has preserved unity amongst millions of adherents. And Christ surely gave a rule of faith calculated to preserve unity rather than produce diversity.

As remote sources of Christian doctrine Catholics accept equally the Bible and authentic Christian tradition. These constitute the written and unwritten Word of God. The immediate guide of Catholics is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. That Church expresses from time to time in a dogma the exact sense of some doctrine contained either in Scripture or tradition. As divine tradition can never be opposed to Scripture, and Catholic dogma can never be opposed to either Scripture or tradition, there can never be any question of placing more reliance on one than on the others. Of course, where a person's private interpretation of Scripture conflicts with a dogma of the Church, I would certainly place more reliance on the dogma of the Church than upon that person's private interpretation of Scripture.

You are using the word tradition in a sense other than that intended by the Church in this matter. We intend, as a source of Christian truth, that divine tradition which is the collection of doctrines taught by Christ and the Apostles, but which were not written in the New Testament. They have been written in various "Creeds," and "Professions of Faith," and are supported by the unanimous consent of the Fathers who lived in the first centuries and knew the Apostolic teaching. St. Paul said to Timothy, "The things you have heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who will be fit to teach others also." II. Tim. II., 2. The early ecclesiastical writers recorded the teachings of these "faithful men"; and those teachings are an authentic source of the revelation of Christ to be transmitted to posterity. Later, and merely human traditions, have nothing to do with this divine tradition, which has been specially safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

I admit that the various compilers of our Calendar made mistakes in their calculations, and that the year of Christ's birth was earlier than the authors of our Calendar believed. But this error in the computation of time in no way affects Christianity, as a religion, nor the facts of Christianity. If a schoolboy makes a mistake as to the date when King Richard the First died, that makes no difference to the fact that he died when he did.

No. It must be noticed, of course, that the Catechism gives merely the accepted approximate estimate of the life of Christ. It is not a defined Article of Faith that Christ lived exactly thirty-three years. If Christ was born four years before we think He was, then He died four years before we think He did. The thirty-three years would remain as the most probable estimate of the length of His life. However, we do not claim more than probability in this matter, and the question is not of any vital importance.

The Calendar, whether accurate or inaccurate, in no way comes under the definition of Apostolic tradition as one of the sources of revelation. No argument based on the Calendar has any bearing, therefore, on the subject of tradition.

It used to be the Protestant tradition that the Catholic religion is opposed to the Bible. Now when a man has that fixed idea firmly embedded in his mind, he gets a shock when he hears the Bible quoted in favor of Catholicism. The stronger the texts are, the greater his shock. But some people never dream that they may have been laboring under a delusion. They refuse to entertain the idea that they have been wrong all their lives. The texts quoted seem to point to Catholicism all right, but to them it simply cannot be true. So they seek an excuse for not believing what they cannot refute. Every text which seems to favor Catholicism cannot mean what it says, but must obviously be "doctored." And they are so sure that they alone are truly guided by God that anyone impressed by the case for the Catholic religion must be regarded as not having heard the voice of the true Shepherd!

Since no non-Catholic Churches claim to be infallible, but admit their constant liability to error, they cannot even claim equal value for their interpretations. Moreover, apart from their divergence from the Catholic interpretation, they differ amongst themselves. That would not be, had they all equally arrived at the correct sense of the Bible. As a matter of fact, all practically nullify the claims of each as a reliable guide to the meaning of Scripture.

They are not founded on the same basic principles. In basic principles they are diametrically opposed. What is the basic principle of Protestantism? It is belief in what one thinks the Bible to mean. If a man thinks the Bible to support this or that doctrine, then it surely does so; for he cannot imagine that he might be wrong. He makes an act of faith in his own judgment. But the Catholic basic principle is very different. Instead of deciding for himself what is or is not the teaching of Christ, the Catholic is taught that teaching by the Catholic Church. He knows that his own judgment is quite likely to be wrong, but that the Catholic Church cannot be wrong. How different are the basic principles of the two religions can be judged from results. For the Protestant principle leads to endless diversity, whilst the Catholic principle leads to a world-wide and international unity.

That is not so. The Bible does support it, of course. But even if he never saw a Bible, the Catholic would have sufficient ground for his judgment. He knows that the Catholic priest does not preach merely his own opinions, as does the Protestant minister. He knows that his Church is not a particular sect, but a vast united universal Apostolic Church, whose history shows the allegiance of innumerable saints and martyrs. And such a Church is impossible to account for by merely human forces. It is God's work on the very face of it. Merely human institutions have always tended to fluctuation, change, and disintegration. Empires have crumbled. No human being can get even one nation to agree, say, on political matters. How could a mere man persuade over 400 millions drawn from all nations to agree on religious matters--millions who differ on almost every other conceivable subject? The Catholic has reasonable grounds for his acceptance of the Church as the teacher of mankind in religious matters; and he submits to her authoritative teaching in matters of faith and morals, rather than decide for himself what the Bible must mean.

On Protestant principles, there is no one who could do so. And that is the basic fallacy of Protestantism. It offers no certainty, and can offer no certainty, as to what God does really teach. Yet it is essential that in so grave a matter we should have certainty. The Catholic Church alone can give it.

For a Catholic the issue does not depend on the Bible, even though the Bible does corroborate Catholicism. No Protestant can prove his beliefs from the Bible, or even that they ought to be proved from the Bible. You say that Protestants cannot prove their position, and that Catholics cannot prove theirs. It's a matter of conjecture and opinion. Protestants may be right or Catholics may be right. Neither has proof, and we must be content to do without proof. I admit that that is the logical result of the Protestant principles on which you argue; and for that reason Protestantism must end in uncertainty and doubt. That in itself should be enough to prove that it cannot be the religion of Christ.

Only by abandoning the Protestant principle of personal and private judgment, and accepting the doctrines taught clearly and definitely by the Catholic Church. She is the only tribunal in the world with authority from God to teach all nations, and endowed with infallibility in order that she may not lead men into error. And for two thousand years she has both fulfilled and proved her mission under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

If so, it is because they have not the right idea of faith, nor the will to submit to the teaching authority of Christ. When Christ, the very Son of God, reveals the truth, that truth must not be accommodated to our mental variations; our own mental outlook must be adjusted to that truth. We cannot take what suits us, and reject what does not. Thus St. Paul wrote, "The knowledge of God brings into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ." II Cor. X., 5. God has the right to demand the obedience of the intelligence as well as of the will; and that obedience is manifested by the acceptance of dogmatic truth revealed by Him.

Ontological and Divine Truth as identified with the Being of God is infinite and incomprehensible. But not all logical and derived truth is infinite and incomprehensible. There is a difference between truth of being and truth of thought concerning that being. The created mind can attain and comprehend truth derived from the consideration of created things. It can attain a genuine though inadequate knowledge of uncreated truth insofar as God deigns to reveal that information and insofar as human thought can express it.

He is certainly capable of comprehending that a thing is true and its opposite false, even though he cannot comprehend the full inner nature of the thing he knows to be true. For example, I know from historical evidence that Christ lived. I know that He established the Catholic Church. I know that He promised to be with that Church all days till the end of the world. I know that He wrought certain works which proved His claim to be God, and no ordinary man. All that is human knowledge on my own human level. I take His word for it that He has left Himself really present in the Eucharist. I do not fully comprehend the inner nature of His presence there. But I do understand by my human faculties the truth or falsity of facts. It is true to say that He is there; it is false to say that He is not there. I assert the truth with dogmatic certainty--a certainty based on the knowledge that the Infinite and All-perfect God must know the truth, and could not tell a lie.

Not if it be a question of merely human opinions derived by our own processes of thinking from more or less probable premises. But one who is quite conscious that he is preserved by God from error in declaring a truth revealed by God Himself is certainly justified in speaking with dogmatic certainty. And under certain conditions, well known and defined, the Catholic Church has this promised assistance of God where His revelation is concerned, so that her official dogmatic definitions are infallibly correct.

That is not universally true even where merely natural knowledge is concerned. A scientifically demonstrated natural truth is human knowledge, and it is not fallible knowledge. For example, it is infallibly true that the earth is a globe. If all human knowledge is fallible then you could not even know for certain that you had sent these questions to me and that I am answering them. Where knowledge of the supernatural is concerned I grant that absolute certainty cannot be had without an infallible teaching authority guaranteed by God.

That cannot be accepted as a complete summary of the teachingsof Christ. If there is one thing certain it is that Christ wantedus to get our heads right as well as our hearts. He is not only theway to be followed; He is the truth to be believed. As a matter offact, one cannot get one's heart right and one's motivesclean until he knows what it means to have a right heart and cleanmotives. Yet the moment he makes any definite statement as to thenature of these things he invades the region of dogma, and isforced to declare a creed. The idea that it is conduct that counts,and that creeds do not matter; that behavior and not belief is whatwe want, is, of course, a complete reversal of the axiom,"Believe on Christ and be saved." At one time peopleinsisted on faith without works. Now works without faith aredemanded. But the Catholic Church opposes both extremes. Faith andworks are necessary; belief and behavior are required; the heartmust be right, but it must not run away with the head. By all meanslet us strive after Christian conduct; but we must not make that anexcuse for denying the Christian creed.

It would still have value, even if it did not do that, providedit correctly recorded the teaching of Christ. The truth would stillhave its value as the truth, even if men did not live up to it.Also, even if men are not living for Christ, it is better for themto have a correct creed than a wrong one. They at least would admitthe truth of His teachings even though they did not fulfill Hisprecepts. Surely that is better than rejecting both His teachingsand His precepts. Again, the sinner who has a correct creed is in abetter position when he does want to yield his soul to Christ thanthe sinner who has mistaken ideas concerning the nature and dutiesof Christ's religion.

If you have any faith in Christ at all, you can easily have thefaith possessed by Catholics. For it is only a question of findingout what Christ taught, and then letting your faith in Christextend to that also. For example, if you believe in Christ, andfind that the Catholic Church is the one He founded, your faith inHim includes faith in the Catholic Church. But I think your troubleis that you misunderstand faith, expecting far more than isrequired by it.

That exemplifies what I have just said. You imagine that you donot believe a thing unless you fully understand it, seeing all itsins and outs for yourself. But faith is not that. Faith is theacceptance of what Christ has said because He said it. If He tellsme that something is true which I would normally have thoughtincredible, I believe it. And if He but tells me the fact withoutdeigning to explain it to my full satisfaction, it will continue to baffle me. Yetthat does not diminish my belief in its reality. Instead of saying,"It is of no use to try to make myself believe what I do notbelieve," I rather say, "I believe what Christ teacheseven though I do not fully comprehend it."

It is true that faith in Christ and in all that He taught is agift of God. And this gift comes to one in answer to prayer. Butone has also to come to the faith. That is, one must not have themere wish, but the will to believe what Christ has taught. We arenot asked to realize, or visualize, or see the full significance ofwhat is proposed to us. That would be expecting too much, and isnot possible in this life. In such a case we would have"sight," not "faith." I cannot realize thatChrist is indeed really present in the Holy Eucharist. I believe itabsolutely, because He has said it. Had He not said it, I wouldhave no means of knowing it. I say this to warn you againstexpecting too much. Wrong and exaggerated ideas of what faith meanscould conceivably keep you still waiting for a faith you alreadypossess. The conviction that Christ is God and that the CatholicChurch is His one true Church, together with the will to accept theteachings of that Church and to obey its laws, are sufficientindications that one possesses the Catholic Faith.

Because what is believed by faith, though not against reason, isabove reason. When God reveals a truth known to Himself alone, andnot to be derived from a consideration of the created things aroundus, we do not know it as a conclusion of human reasoning nor as aconsequence of scientific study of created things. We know quitescientifically and historically that God has revealed it, but weknow that it is true solely because God has said so; and theconviction of its truth is due to faith in God's knowledge ofthe subject, and in His absolute veracity. Since revealed truth isabove that to be attained by reason and science, it demands inaddition to sane reasoning and scientific examination a deep faithin God's knowledge, veracity, and authority; for these are themotives impelling us to accept and believe the additionalinformation in question. So we Catholics accept all the conclusionsof sane reasoning; all established scientific facts; and all thedefined teachings of the Catholic Church.

If a Catholic scientist used those words with the idea that Catholic doctrine conflicts with science or reason, then either he knew very little of science, or very little of his religion. Instead of adopting the precaution of separate pockets, he should have adopted the precaution of studying a little more deeply either his science or his faith, when he would have found that there is no conflict between science rightly understood and his religion rightly understood.

That is certainly not true. Lord Rayleigh, in a presidential address to the British Association quite recently, said, "The scientific worker knows in his heart that underneath the theories which he constructs there lie contradictions which he cannot reconcile." Professor J. B. S. Haldane writes, "I certainly do not believe all that Darwin wrote, all that Wells, Russell, and Hogben write. Worse still, 1 do not believe all that I myself have written." He also says, "Much of what passes for scientific psychology seems to me profoundly unscientific. The same is true of eugenics, criminology, and many other ologies." There is not a real scientist who would not laugh at the suggestion that scientists are able to demonstrate beyond doubt all that they say. Many professing scientists have the unfortunate knack of saying that some things are true beyond all doubt, although they are quite unable to demonstrate them. And it is a matter of historical fact that they have had to unsay such things again and again when what they have asserted has been proved false, or what they have denied has been proved true.

Such a choice will never confront a Catholic. Should there seem to be a conflict, he knows that he has either wrongly conceived a doctrine to be part of the Catholic faith, or else he has wrongly thought the adverse proposition to be reasonable. He therefore re-examines the position, knowing that he will find a mistake in his interpretation of the faith, or a fallacy in his reasoning. If I knew for certain that the Church had defined a given doctrine to be a dogma of faith, and my own ideas seemed at variance with the defined dogma, I would certainly choose to believe my own ideas mistaken rather than charge the Catholic Church with error. After all, Christ guaranteed the infallibility of the teaching Church, not of every individual man. And the history of human thought is as much a history of mistakes as it is a history of truth. Absolute confidence in one's own inability to reason wrongly is itself unreasonable, and against the facts of experience.

Not one instance can be produced showing that any article of the Catholic Faith has ever clashed with the conclusions of sound and rightly informed reason.

Not one article of Faith has ever had to be tampered with or changed in order to placate what some people have been pleased to call the claims of reason.

He was not. Having been excommunicated by the Calvinists, expelled from England as a disturber of the peace, excommunicated by the Lutherans in Germany, he came to Rome, and was there condemned for blasphemy and heresy, because he denied that Christ was God, and asserted Him to be but a magician. Even then the Church did not burn him. He was burned by the civil authorities as a traitor and as a dangerous enemy of the welfare of the state.

The only answer to that question is another. Why do you not try to find out the truth, instead of taking for granted any assertions you come across, provided they seem to cast a reflection on the Catholic Church? Is it because of prejudice and hate? Two things are necessary when drawing conclusions from history. The first thing is to get your facts right. The second thing is to get your interpretation of the facts right. You have done neither of those things.

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Faith

A Definite Christian Faith

The Protestant Reformation

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Church

The Church and Her Moral Teachings

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Comparative Study of Non-Catholic Denominations

To and From Rome

Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Faith

A Definite Christian Faith

The Protestant Reformation

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Church

The Church and Her Moral Teachings

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Comparative Study of Non-Catholic Denominations

To and From Rome

QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 2

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

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

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

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

406. Even if Catholics knew that the conduct of a priest was not right, they would be afraid to say anything.

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?

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?

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?

410. Is not the confessional used to compel people to pay for Church purposes?

411. Does not the Church compel people to go to Mass so that she can extract wealth from an assured congregation?

412. Ought not the Pope to go round amongst the poor as Christ did?

413. Why does he live in such luxury?

414. Has your disappointment with the Catholics you have met ever made you regret becoming a Catholic?

415. You claim that your Church is not only one united Church, and holy, but also that it is Catholic.

416. Your Church has not been known as Catholic since its foundation; and it has never been universal as the word implies.

417. Which is the largest individual religion in the world today?

418. Why do you describe your Church as the "Catholic Church," and not as the "Roman Catholic" Church?

419. You have not the right to drop the word "Roman."

420. The word Catholic means universal.

421. Would it not be more universal if the Pope were not always an Italian?

422. One could not imagine a Protestant Archbishop submitting to any foreign control.

423. Is it not because the Catholic Church thinks it her mission to convert the world that she undertakes so many foreign missions?

424. A government officer of Papua recently said that unless the missionaries there could give the natives work as well as civilization, it would be better to leave them alone to work out their own destiny.

425. He added that if we stop these people in their social progress, we will take away the whole of their life interest.

426. Christianity is not a sufficient exchange. If we are not going to disillusion those people we should leave them alone.

427. The white residents are not very favorable to the missions.

428. You maintain that the true Church must be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; and that your Church alone complies with these requirements.

429. How do we know that even the Apostles were Catholics, and that their teaching was Catholic?

430. I have been told that no Church came into existence until the fourth century!

431. How do you explain the Apostolic character of your Church?

432. The commission was to the Apostles; not to any Church.

433. It is difficult to believe in these Apostolic claims by your Church.

434. If there was only one Apostolic religion, your own, when and by whom was a breakaway caused?

435. You claim, then that your Church is indestructible?

436. Do you imagine that your Church is unassailable?

437. The present state of the world scarcely justifies your confidence in the perseverance of your Church till the end of time.

438. Are not all the Christian Churches decaying and dying?

439. What of the persecutions in Russia, Germany, Mexico, and elsewhere in the modern world?

440. I have heard even Catholics admit that things look bad for their Church.

441. History is not in favor of your Church by the mere fact that it records so much opposition against her.

442. Is it any argument to say, "I am persecuted, therefore I am right?"

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.

444. Is it necessary for salvation to become amember of the Catholic Church?

445. Do you assert that all people not members ofthe Roman Church are heathens?

446. Religiously I am just nothing, and have neverbothered about religion. Do you say that I am obliged to become aCatholic?

447. There is no need to join the Catholic Church inorder to be saved. John III., 15, says, "Whosoever believethin Him will not perish, but will have life everlasting."

448. There is nothing in those wonderful words of aprivileged Church.

449. Gal. III., 28, says, "There is neither Jewnor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither malenor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."