Is It Me? Or the Ene-Me?

After a recent FYCV presentation, a participant commented, “I don’t have the patience to evangelize.  These people just do not get it and it is totally frustrating to talk with them about faith and religion.”

I suggested considering that her view is very likely one that the enemy – the devil – wants her to have.  And if she goes on believing it is simply in her nature with no way to change it, that is perfect – as far as the enemy is concerned. 

“There are people that your personality resonates with, that mine does not.  And those are especially the people that the Holy Spirit wants your help in reaching.  They are also the ones that the enemy does not want you talking to about spiritual matters.   When you are overcome with a sense of frustration and impatience, find some time to reflect on those feelings, thank Jesus for making you aware of them, and ask him to use his grace to help you overcome them so that you can be more effective at serving him.”

While unlikely that this will result in an immediate change, nonetheless, when Jesus promises “if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.” (Jn 14:14) this is the kind of request he will honor.  He will help us to find our Catholic voice.

"Not Catholic, Not Saved." Not True.

The Catechism states clearly that non-Catholics can get to Heaven:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Does this mean there is no merit in being Catholic?  A Catholic once told me, “If we all get to heaven, I might as well be Protestant.  It’s easier!”

Actually, Catholics have it easier.  For example, Catholics have access to all the grace God makes available through all of the Sacraments. Non-Catholics don’t.

Furthermore, think of each individual being invited to live in an amazing luxury compound located deep in the heart of a massive, dense forest.  Everyone who manages to hike through the forest and arrive at the compound will be heartily welcomed.  Furthermore, maps are available describing how to get to the compound, including where there are vital rest stops along the route.  It is possible to reach the compound without having a map.  It is also possible to have a map, misread it - or ignore it altogether - and fail to reach the compound.

Catholicism is like that map.  One can achieve eternal salvation without being Catholic.  One can be Catholic and not achieve it.  And yet, being Catholic makes it much more likely that one will achieve it.

Who is Good?

Atheists can be morally good people.  In fact, there are some atheists who behave far better than some Christians do.  However, atheists cannot offer a workable rationale for why they or anyone else should behave “morally.” They can only assert subjectively that they “believe” that such-and-such behavior to be “moral” but cannot provide any objective basis for it, “You should behave this way because I think you should.”

A person who does not know God, can choose to follow personal or social standards of morality.  However, it is merely a morality based on personal feelings, opinion, or taste.  Being completely subjective, there is no basis for proposing that everyone or anyone “should” follow someone else’s chosen morality – other than “We have the power to force you.”  With no objective standards, a Bashir Al Assad – indeed, any “evil” person - can have their own subjective morality and there is no basis for an atheist to criticize his conduct.  In fact, it is inappropriate to even use the word “evil” as it begs the question, “Whose definition of ‘evil?’”

Furthermore, there is irony in an atheist asserting that they can be “moral without God.”  Absent an objective standard – i.e. one communicated by a Creator God – there is only a subjective definition of “moral.”  What one person considers moral, someone else may not and no one can evaluate the matter objectively and declare either of them correct or in error.

Bible Translations (Final)

The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek; and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals.  These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy.  Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.  That means that there is only ½ of 1% of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly.  Furthermore, the majority of those “disagreements” are merely spelling errors and minor word differences, e.g. instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ."

Even if all of the New Testament manuscripts were destroyed, it could be extracted from the writings of the Church Fathers.  Their numerous books and letters contain over 38,000 quotations from the New Testament.  From their writings alone we could reconstruct the entire New Testament minus about 11 verses.

Lastly, when the Bible is translated it is not translated from a translation of a translation of a translation.  It is translated from the original language into the desired language.  It is a one-step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption.  A Spanish translation is derived directly from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It is the same for each and every language into which the Bible is translated.

In summary - leaving the matter of the Bible being God’s word as a separate topic –the Bible is more reliable as historical literature than any other readily accepted historical document.

Knowing this, one can read the New Testament and conclude that Jesus established the Catholic Church, and it is through that Church, that we learn what books comprise the Bible and that those books are indeed inspired.