In our legal system, if we don’t like a law, we push for new laws and elect new legislators who might listen to us. When it comes to interpreting and applying existing laws, we hire the most skilled attorneys we can afford, whose job is not to seek the truth but to present our side most effectively. Even if we lose at trial, we can still pursue our cause through various avenues of appeal, all the while using the media to put pressure on the government.

We have many “disciplines” in the Church which are “positive law,” meaning that they’re the product of human invention. While Church leaders in general make the best pastoral judgments they can, such disciplines may turn out to be good, bad, or somewhere in between, and they may be in effect for a week or for 100 years or more.

Church disciplines have been subject of “lobbying,” especially in our time, from altar girls and Communion on the hand to a wider, more readily available access to the extraordinary (Tridentine) form of the Roman rite. The laity have the right to be heard on such matters, though in the meantime the current discipline calls forth our obedience and filial respect for the Church.

However, when it comes to the deposit of faith--what the Church teaches in the area of faith and morals--American democratic concepts simply are out of place. No matter how many petitions are signed, no matter how fervently and repeatedly dissent is allowed to foment and lead people astray, what God has revealed through Christ as proclaimed by the Church is not up for grabs.

Some dissenters express frustration that some “celibate old man” in Rome can say that I have to believe and act in a certain way. Clearly there is a misunderstanding of authority here. The Pope does have considerable juridical or legal power, but in matters of faith and morals his authority is that of guardian and mouthpiece, not scriptwriter or legislator.

For example, if someone has a problem with the Immaculate Conception, the problem is not with Pope Pius IX, but with the way God has chosen to come among us to save us. If someone has a problem with the Church’s teaching on contraception, the problem is not with Pope Paul VI, but with the way God has created the human person and human society.

If I were given a speeding ticket and appeared before a judge to contest it, what would happen if my defense proceeded as follows:

 ”But your honor, modern legal scholars say that traffic laws are repressive, archaic, and the product of a male-dominated, pre-modern era and do not speak to the contemporary citizen . . .”

Obviously the judge, depending on his or her temperament, would either laugh at me or cite me for contempt.

Let’s note that there are two distinct problems with my defense. First, the argument itself is defective. Most people would agree that some traffic laws are necessary to promote public safety.

The second issue is what possible authority does some “scholar” have to change the law? In deciding the case, the judge will have to ascertain the actual speed limit where I was driving, how fast I was going, and consequently whether I exceeded the speed limit. The scholar’s opinion regarding the speed limit is utterly irrelevant.

The same two problems exist today regarding some theologians. First, what they teach is contrary to the deposit of faith. (In plain English, they’re wrong!) Second, their opinions are accorded weight in some circles not only because they’re the product of “scholars” or “experts,” but also because they purportedly represent the “modern Catholic.”

As the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith set forth some time ago in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, theologians do play a critical role in the Church’s understanding and communication of the faith. What all of us, especially theologians, need to keep before us, however, is that we have a teaching that is not our own, but one that has been handed on to us. Our faith seeks understanding, but presupposes content.

Behind our laws, values, and culture is a blending, or melting pot, of our founding fathers’ ideals, diverse ethnic and religious cultures, pragmatic court decisions, legislative compromises, narrow agendas, and special interests that continue to evolve. And we must admit (as has become part of Barack Obama’s political mantra) that such evolution has an ever-increasing bias in favor of that which is new--in other words, change.

Behind the teaching of the Church, however, there is Jesus Christ, the Mediator and sum total of Revelation, who not only is with us always (Mt. 28:20), but who is “the same yesterday and today and for ever” (Heb. 13:8). 

The relation of Christ and the Church is often expressed in nuptial terms: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church is His Bride. By extension, the bishop (who acts in the person of Christ) and his flock have a spousal, familial relationship. The bishop’s ring symbolizes his “marriage” to the local Church. Moreover, the bishop typically wears a pectoral cross, not a crucifix. There is no corpus on his cross because the bishop himself is to be the corpus, laying down his life for his bride in imitation of our Savior (John 15:13; Eph. 5:25).  

Spousal, covenantal relationships do not involve a quid pro quo. My fidelity to my marriage covenant is not dependant on my wife’s fidelity. I don’t assess my wife’s performance each day in order to decide whether she deserves my love. Rather, my commitment--and hers--must be total and unconditional.

This principle also applies to our relationship with bishops. More...

Let's recap what we have discussed so far in this brief series on Peter's confession of faith in Matthew 16.

Peter confessed his belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus not only blessed him profusely, but also gave him a new name and a special mission as the "rock" on which He will build His Church. We then looked at the "keys" that were given to Peter, which established him as the "prime minister" of Christ's kingdom, with the authority to "bind and loose."
 
Clearly Peter had a preeminent role as the leader of Christ’s kingdom on earth. But where do Catholics get the idea of an ongoing papacy?

First, let's look again at Isaiah 22 from the standpoint of the transfer of office from Shebna to Eliakim. The authority is tied to the office (whoever is given the "keys" and raiment of the prime minister), and not to the individual.

Sports fans call Lebron James "King James" because of his basketball prowess. Yet this title, or nickname, is attached to Lebron personally. There is no "office" that Lebron holds, and when he retires there will not be a "King James" on the court. That title will not pass to his children or teammates. More...

Let's turn again to Matthew 16:19, where Our Lord says to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Part of giving Peter the "keys" involved the authority to "bind and loose." As we see a couple chapters later in Matthew, this was an authority shared with the other apostles (Mt. 18:18).

This "binding and loosing" authority may sound strange to us, but this language had several familiar meanings in Jesus’ time, including: More...

After changing Simon’s name to Peter, Jesus did something else that made Peter’s important position in the kingdom even more obvious. Jesus gave Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to “bind and loose” (Mt. 16:19).

To understand the rich symbolism of the keys, we need to see how they were used in the Davidic kingdom of the Old Testament.

The key of the house of David symbolized the administrative authority of the “master of the palace” who is "over the household." This person would be the king’s highest ranking official in the royal court, known as the al bayyit or prime minister, who acts with the king's authority.

Let’s look at this role in the Old Testament. More...

In our last installment (sorry about the delay, btw, had a virus and was also traveling), we saw that in Matthew 16, Our Lord gave Simon the name Peter. Today, we're going to take a closer look at that name and what it says about his mission in the context of the Church Jesus is building.

The name Jesus--Petros in Greek and Kepha in Jesus’ language--means Rock.
 
There is no evidence that Kepha was ever used as a proper name before this incident. Peter is a common name now, but not then. It's like being named Boulder. It was a very unusual name. What did Jesus mean when He called Simon by this non-name, “Rock”?
 
And what did He mean when He told him He would build His Church on him and the gates of death would not prevail against it? More...

If you go into St. Peter’s basilica and look up, at the base of the dome, there are big, distinctive black letters on gold that say (in Latin) “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

These were crucially important words 2,000 years ago, and they’re also an important foundation for the role of the pope in Christ’s kingdom today.
 
Imagine what it would have been like to have been there during that pivotal conversation between Jesus and Peter. Let’s time travel back to Caesarea Philippi and hear these words as the apostles and others at that time would have heard them. More...

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you” (1 Tim. 6:20).

This sort of language is a recurring theme of St. Paul as he instructs his successor Timothy. In fact, St. Paul tells Timothy that “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2; see also 2 Tim. 1:14).

But what exactly was entrusted to Timothy? More...

Not long ago I was asked, "Is there anywhere a list of the definitive moral teachings of the Church? Would it be correct to call anyone a dissenter who dissents from a teaching in the Catechism even if it not on a list of definitive teachings?"

Probably the closest thing to a comprehensive list of definitive moral teachings, in the context of offenses against human life and dignity, would be More...

We’re all accustomed to referring to the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ." After all, it was Peter who received the keys, and as Catholics we recognize the special role of the popes--St. Peter's successors--as Christ’s chosen representative to rule and guide the Universal Church until the end of time.

But one teaching that sometimes gets overlooked today is that the other bishops are not simply vicars of the Pope, but vicars of Christ Himself in the particular Church (i.e., diocese) assigned to them. They legitimately exercise their role only in communion with the Pope, but nonetheless they personally exercise their office in the name of Christ as a successor of the apostles. He is neither a mere representative of the Pope nor does he legitimately exercise authority apart from the Pope (See Catechism, nos. 880-96, especially 894-95).

Some may be surprised to know that a number of Popes have even referred to Christian parents as vicars of Christ in the home. More...

It’s hard to believe, but it's been more than 50 years since Pope John XXIII first announced his plan to convoke the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the 21st ecumenical council in the Church’s history.

Pope Benedict XVI candidly admits the difficulties that have hampered the implementation of Vatican II. For the Holy Father, the key to correctly implementing Vatican II lies in using the “proper hermeneutics.” In other words, we must look at Vatican II through the appropriate lens. More...

I've been involved in many discussions with Christians who have axes to grind with the Catholic Church. It seems that every time I patiently answer one of their grievances, they come up with five more!

It typically comes down to an assessment that the Catholic Church can’t be the true Church because the Church isn’t holy. It’s a big, money-grubbing bureaucracy with wealthy bishops, pedophile priests, and ignorant, superstitious laity. How could such an institution claim to have the “fullness of truth”? Why can’t I just pray to God in my own way and with my own Bible without having to pay homage to this corrupt institution?

Our apostolic faith teaches us that we believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” The Church’s unity, or “one-ness,” can be quite a challenge for many, given the many divisions among Christians. Yet, I think the holiness of the Church may be even more difficult to understand and accept at first blush than the Church’s unity. After all, the Church is composed of frail, weak, sinful human beings, yet we have the gall to say the Church is holy. More...

My algebra textbook in ninth grade had an answer key in the back that enabled me to check my answers upon completing my homework assignment. Most of the time, the answer key simply served to verify that I had in fact arrived at the correct answer. Sometimes, however, the answer given in the book was different from my answer. What did I do?

I realized that 99.99 percent of the time the book was right. The book didn’t have to change--I did. I would rework the problem a little more carefully and eventually I would discover my error and correct it. There were still times that I didn’t get the right answer. In those cases I had to admit that maybe I didn’t quite understand the material well enough, and I needed to consult the teacher. I had a fundamental trust in the reliability of the answer key, as I was humble enough (barely) to recognize that the professional mathematicians who wrote the book were probably right, and I, a cocky adolescent, was probably wrong.

In a real sense, God’s Word is our answer key, providing answers to our most basic, essential questions. Who made us? What is the purpose of our existence? What good must we do to attain eternal life?

I must admit that every so often there was a typo in the answer key of my algebra book, and I would rather proudly point it out to my teacher and classmates. But God’s Word is even more reliable. It is utterly free from error. As we say in the Act of Faith, God can neither deceive nor be deceived. His Word surely will not lead us astray.

And that’s not all. More...

Today the universal Church celebrates the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. When I first returned to the Church way back when, I thought this feast sounded really strange. I was okay with celebrating events from the life of Christ, and even with celebrating feasts in honor of special saints. But a chair?

Then I read that ever since the fourth century, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter has been celebrated in Rome as a sign of the unity of the Church founded upon that apostle. Hmmm. There must be more to the story . . . More...

On most Sundays we just manage to get our large household to Mass only a few minutes before it starts. By the time I say a short prayer, we're standing for the opening hymn and then we're off and running.

Today we were more punctual than usual, so after some private prayer I sat back in the pew and started thinking about a variety of things, For some reason, I thought about a particular section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I've pondered for many years, which basically says that actions follow beliefs--or lack thereof.  And a parallel between the Eucharist and marriage on this point hit me like a ton of bricks: More...