THE RECALL OF THE YOUCAT

The Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church, nicknamed YOUCAT, has been increasingly criticized ever since its release in 2011 and there is now a serious petition to recall it.

At first the protests seemed to be confined to issues related to the phrasing of particular entries in the Italian and German versions, but it appears that the English version contains several issues and we would do well to be advised of them.

The first problem occurs in Question 15 which reads: “How can Sacred Scripture be “truth” if not everything in it is right?” The question is awkwardly worded and could easily lead the young reader to suppose that somethings in Scripture are wrong.

The YOUCAT’s answer attempts to clarify what is meant by the question but further confuses matters by stating that the Sacred Authors were products of their culture and “dominated by its errors”.

This is a rather amazing statement since we know 1) that several of the Sacred Authors were persecuted precisely because they contradicted their culture, 2) not only were NOT “dominated by its errors” but in fact condemned those errors, and 3) while fallen men like the rest of us, were protected from error by the Holy Spirit as regards what is ultimately recorded in Holy Scripture.

A more informed and mature reader might be able to apprehend a more complex understanding of the question as regards particular challenges related to translations, versions, or even the historicity of certain events, but the young reader is simply led to believe that Scripture may contain errors - something repeatedly condemned by the Church for centuries.

Another problem occurs in Question 42 in which the reader is asked: “Can someone accept the theory of evolution and still believe in the Creator?” The problem occurs in the answer to the question which essentially answers “yes” so long as one “does not fall into the heresy of evolutionism”.  The young reader, fresh from his high school exposure to Darwinism, is not likely to understand the “heresy of evolutionism”.

The understanding of evolution within the context of revelation is extremely complex and even John Paul II’s skilled treatment of it (1996) has met with skepticism and opposition. To simply throw the whole question of evolution into a radically simplified and ambiguous entry for consumption by youth is dangerous.

But the real issue is that the entry entirely misses the ultimate qualifier for the Catholic acceptance of any theory of creation and that is that the Catholic must believe that the first man and first woman were directly created by God.

There are other problems which we do not have space to address here so we will skip to perhaps the most problematic entry of all - given the current national drama over the contraception debate.

Question 421 asks: “Why are all methods of preventing the conception of a child not equally good?” The question presupposes a graduated moral grade for different methods of birth control which is not only FALSE but a grave error when one considers the Church’s outright condemnation of deliberate contraceptive acts as “intrinsically evil”. (CCC 2370)

The question is a setup to highlight the Church’s acceptance of NFP (periodic abstinence) but grossly misrepresents it. The YOUCAT states:

“The Church recommends the refined methods of self-observation and natural family planning (NFP) as methods of deliberately regulating conception. These are in keeping with the dignity of man and woman; they respect the innate laws of the female body; they demand mutual affection and consideration and therefore are a school of love. [2370–2372, 2399]

Actually, the Church does NOT recommend NFP. As per paragraph 2370 of the official Catechism, NFP is only allowed for sufficient reason: “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158” (CCC 2370)

There is no recommendation here. Periodic continence is simply allowed due to its “conformity with the objective criteria of morality” and the footnote “158” provides the key to a serious treatment of this “objective criteria” which centers on the necessity for “grave reason”.

Treatment of this requires a whole other column, but in short, 158 is a footnote to a section in Humanae Vitae which itself footnotes a critical reference to a teaching by Pius XII on the necessity of “grave reason”- upon which the morality of periodic continence depends.

The official teaching of the Catholic Church commonly builds upon previous teaching,  and a single footnote can often lead to whole tomes and presumes familiarity with them. The YOUCAT, while its intent to reach the younger Catholic is laudable, tragically dumbs down critical issues and endangers its readers. Use with caution.

The Recall Petition

The Bellarmine Report: YOUCAT weak on homosexuality, contraception, euthanasia, evolution, and scripture.

Statement from Aquinas and More about discontinuing distribution of the YOUCAT

INSIGHT SCOOP- the blog of Ignatius Press which publishes the YOUCAT in defense of the YOUCAT's answer to question 421. (I do not agree with it and find it to be weak, but am providing the link so you can read their defense. Obviously the need to explain an explanation defeats the purpose of the catechism and shows its inherent weakness.)

THE REAL LOSERS

I am a professional young man in his 20's. I just met this girl and she is quite attractive. We meet to have a few drinks. One thing leads to another and, well, you know. We talk a few times after that but it just doesn't seem to be working, so I don't call her back anymore.

A few weeks later she calls me at work and says we need to talk. "What for?"

"Just meet me."

I met her at Starbucks's after work and she looks like she might have been crying. After an awkward hug and a kiss, we sit down with our drinks and then blammo...

"I am pregnant."

I paused for a moment and then said, "Ok. Why tell me?"

"Well, its your baby and I thought you would want to know. After all, you are responsible."

"Whoa, hold on there. I am not responsible for anything. This was your choice."

"It takes two, or don't you remember?"

"Sorry, but this is only your healthcare issue."

"It's not a healthcare issue, it's a baby!"

"Oh no it's not. It's a healthcare issue and not my problem. You have access to government mandated and subsidized free birth control. There was no reason for this to happen. This is entirely up to you."

"You never asked me if I was on birth control. We got caught up and..."

"I am sorry you feel this way but it is not my problem. You are responsible for your own healthcare, not me. You get birth control for free, there is no impediment to you getting it. If you choose not to use it or use it incorrectly, I can't be held responsible for that. If you have a healthcare problem now, don't blame me, blame yourself."

"It's not a healthcare problem, it's not a disease, it's a baby!"

"Sorry, not according to the government. This is a preventable health condition, the cure for which you get for for free courtesy of my tax dollars. How can I possibly be held responsible for your negligence in the prevention of a freely preventable disease?"

"Stop saying that! You can't do this! I will sue for paternity!"

"Go ahead and try. Dozens of cases just like this have already been heard around the country in the last 2 years. In each and every case the court has found that given the government mandated and pervasive free access to birth control, men have a reasonable expectation that women are able to protect themselves from this disease. You can't punish me with a baby because of your negligence. You do remember that I am a lawyer, right?"

"You are a monster!"

"Listen. It has been real. Do me a favor, lose my number."

(This story is reprinted from www.creativeminorityreport.com)

*****

Of course, I am neither in my 20’s nor the guy in the story. And the scenario is nothing new. Women have been on the losing end of the sexual revolution since The Pill first made sex without consequences possible, mostly without consequences for the male.

However, the HHS mandate, by classifying contraception as “preventative care”, has officially made pregnancy a preventable disease like smoking and diet related diseases.

In so doing, the mandate provides the basis for a legal challenge to the normal responsibilities associated with paternity, responsibilities many men already try to avoid, but soon may have the law on their side!

Even the most chauvinistic male couldn’t have planned things out this well. No, it took a genius like President Obama and HHS “Field Marshall” Sibelius, to make women officially the sexual revolution’s legal losers. And they say the Church is waging war on women??

I’m sure the guy in the story (and lots of guys like him) will be casting their vote for Obama in November.

On the HHS Mandate - Part 2, by Fr. Ivan Sciberras

(From the 2/19/12 parish bulletin of St. Peter's Church in Bellville, New Jersey, where Fr. Sciberras is the pastor. www.spnj.org)

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I do not normally write two weeks in a row about the same topic, but given the gravity of the matter I wrote about last week, namely mandated birth-control coverage, and the ―compromise‖ that was offered a week ago by the Administration, I feel impelled to offer a follow-up.

Let me say from the outset that the ―compromise offered to the Catholic Bishops is nothing less than a farce. This is what the Administration had to offer: Catholic-run institutions that in conscience object to offering birth- control, sterilization and abortifacients to their employees would not be obligated to do so. The insurance company (or HMO) would, however, be obligated to provide such services free of charge to all subscribers, regardless of who the employer is. And how would insurance companies fund such coverage, since we cannot expect them to offer it from the generosity of their hearts? Only by raising the premiums paid by the employers, including those who in conscience object to offering such coverage (who are not limited to Catholic institutions, but include other employers and corporations whose religious freedom is imperiled by such a mandate).

Not only does the mandate violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was approved almost anonymously by both the Senate and Congress, and signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. The law states that only in cases where the ―furtherance of a compelling government interest‖ dictates so may the government ―substantially burden‖ a person‘s ―exercise of religion,‖ and only by using ―the least restrictive means.‖ Here it is clear that the government can use one of many different ways to promote its ―anti-life‖ agenda, other than castigate employers for disagreeing with said agenda.

When Pope Paul VI issued the Encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968, he was nothing short of prophetic. The great pope predicted four consequences stemming from the widespread use of contraceptives: (1) a general lowering of morality (one does not need to be a rocket-scientist to detect it); (2) a rise in marriage break-up and illegitimacy (a quarter of marriages in the U.S. ended in divorce in 1968, compared to over 55% today); (3) the reduction of women as objects to satisfy men (pornography is now all over, with human trafficking and sex-slavery growing exponentially) and, finally (4) government coercion in reproductive matters. Those who did not want the Church to dictate what they do in their bedrooms are now happily letting Big Brother tell them whose conscience they should follow!

How right was Pope John Paul II when he said that the attacks against human life are receiving ―widespread and powerful support from a broad consensus on the part of society and that ―we are in fact faced by an objective  ̳conspiracy against life.‘‖ If we allow a president define a pregnancy (ie. human life) as a disease (hence the need to fight it through mandatory health care) rather than as a precious gift, then we only have ourselves to blame when the diabolical attack against life becomes more evident.

Maybe this assault on life and religious freedom has been providentially timed. As we enter into the Season of Lent this week on Ash Wednesday, we are all invited to make a mea culpa for the ways we have all disregarded God‘s Plan and have placed our own comforts and compromises ahead of Divine Law. May this be a season of repentance, ultimately culminating in Christ‘s victory over sin and death on Easter Sunday.

Please check the bulletin for different ways we can draw closer to Christ this Lent. I particularly call your attention to the Day of Recollection we will hold this coming Saturday, February 25. Our internationally- acclaimed speaker, Dr. Dianne M. Traflet, will definitely steer us into the right direction. Consider also attending daily Mass whenever possible, pray the Stations of the Cross with the parish on Fridays, and making a pledge to the Archbishop‘s Annual Appeal so that others may benefit from our excess.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Fr. Ivan Sciberras 

pastor@spbnj.org

On the HHS Mandate by Fr. Ivan Sciberras

(From the 2/12/12 parish bulletin of St. Peter's Church in Bellville, N.J., Fr. Ivan Sciberras, Pastor)

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

In last week‘s bulletin, we reproduced Archbishop Myers‘ letter to the faithful regarding the Government‘s decision about a healthcare issue that significantly affects the Catholic Church‘s ability to operate in this country. The same letter is reproduced in Spanish in this week‘s bulletin. Given the gravity of the matter, the issue was, understandably, given ample coverage especially in the secular media.

And here is the issue: the 2010 health-care law spoke in detail about ―preventive-health services‖ that employers are required to cover (when offering health-benefits to their employees) without an insurance co- payment. This included coverage for contraceptives, sterilization services and abortion-inducing pills. Leaders of the Catholic Church in the U.S. were under the impression that Catholic institutions (and others that in conscience could not agree to providing such services) were exempt from this mandate.

Just last month, the Department of Health and Human Services insisted that the exemption was limited only to Church institutions that provide services exclusively to persons of the same faith. All other Church institutions that also serve people of other faiths - such as hospitals, elementary schools and universities, and organizations like Catholic Charities – are obligated to provide such coverage. When Catholic bishops pleaded for a broader exemption, they were granted an extension of one year – to August 2013 – before being forced to comply with, or else ...

Without trying to give the impression that they are fomenting civil-disobedience, the response of the U.S. bishops has been loud and clear: ―we cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.‖

Unless the Administration relents from this unwise decision, which in the words of columnist Peggy Noonan has ―awakened a sleeping giant‖ (meaning the Catholic population), where does this leave Catholic institutions?

One possibility would be to restrict the activity of Catholic institutions merely to Catholics (e.g. a Catholic school would only be allowed to educate Catholic students and a Catholic hospital only be able to care for Catholic patients). This would be a surreal situation wherein the Church would not be able to function in a Catholic manner, namely, to be a beacon of hope at the service of all humanity.

Another option would be to keep the institutions open for all, but not provide health benefits to its employees, at the cost of a $2,000 fine per year per employee of the institution in question (Catholic Charities, for example, with its 70,000 employees, would be fined $140 million a year for not providing health benefits). That would mean millions less in aid to struggling families, refugees, the sick and the elderly.

Other Catholic institutions would have to shut down altogether. We have already witnessed to Catholic welfare agencies in Massachusetts being forced to shut down their operations only because they could not in conscience place babies with gay couples.

As Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute remarks, more than half of all civic institutions in the U.S. have a religious purpose or affiliation, and an undermining of their liberty ultimately undermines the freedom of each one of us.

Many Catholics, even those who have no qualms in criticizing Church leadership, have made it clear that they do not want the government to control the Church‘s activity. While ―freedom of worship‖ has not been infringed on (at least as yet) in this country, the much broader ―freedom of religion‖ is definitely being undermined in this matter. What guarantee do we have that with ―freedom of religion‖ being compromised, there will not be a day when even the ―freedom of worship‖ – including the content of the preaching and the rites of the Church themselves – will not be jeopardized?

Yes, the sleeping giant is finally awake. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the U.S. In the 2008 election, they made up 27% of the electorate. In nine of the past ten presidential elections, the Catholic vote has gone with the candidate who ultimately won the election. There is very little to gain in attacking the freedom of the Catholic Church, and so much to lose. Let us hope that ultimately, common sense will prevail in this matter.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Fr. Ivan Sciberras 

pastor@spbnj.org

The Short Memory of American Bishops by Jeffrey Fitzgerald

(Jeffrey Fitzgeral is the editor of the U Matuna, the newspaper for the Catholic Archdiocese of Hagatna, Guam)

This week, USY has run an article on the American bishops’ concern with Israel reacting against the threatening position of Iran. Anyone who has paid attention to international news has seen that the situation in and with Iran is both delicate and terrifying.

At the heart of the troubling confrontation-in-the-making of our day is the furious drive of Iran to become a fully nuclear nation. Under its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and with the support of the ayatollahs (the Shi’ite “clergy” in that country), Iran continues to develop its nuclear capability without regard for the United Nations or international political stability.

Just last month, Iran at first allowed but then refused to permit UN nuclear inspectors access to their nuclear facilities to ensure that Iran was not purifying uranium to the degree that it could be mounted as a nuclear weapon. On the whole, warn many experts, it’s just a matter of time before Iran is not only a genuinely nuclear power, but an aggressive power with nuclear weapons—one that has intimated that it would use them to achieve its theocratic goals.

What makes this especially frightening is Iran’s foreign policy and the rhetoric that points to their intentions. For over 30 years, and even more so today, Iran’s government has declared that the nation of Israel must be wiped out, all Israeli Jews annihilated. To use Ahmadinejad’s own words, “the Jews must be driven into the sea.”

This kind of talk should not be underestimated; after all, we are not talking about Denmark here. This is a government that seeks the utter destruction not only of the only truly democratic nation in the Middle East, but also of a huge portion of the Jews: a people that are our elder cousins in faith.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won’t put up with any of that sort of sabre-rattling nonsense. European Jewry was virtually wiped out by the Nazis before and during World War II while the rest of the world stood aside and did nothing. This seems to be the case now with our own president, European leaders, and our bishops. Since WWII, the Israeli maxim is “Never again”—a sentiment Americans likewise share when it comes to tolerating terrorists out to destroy us and our way of life. Never again will they (or we) stand there and wait to be attacked by those who say they are going to attack.

This is what makes the USCCB’s statement on the “moral problem” of Israel ordering a pre-emptive strike against Iran not only short-sighted, but also utterly stupid. It makes no sense, neither rationally nor theologically.

The USCCB’s Committee on International Justice and Peace clearly states that Iran’s probable acquisition of nuclear weapons, vociferous threats against Israel, and lack of cooperation with the international community are serious issues, but they do not justify a pre-emptive strike, i.e. a preventative war. As far as the editorial staff of USY is concerned, the committee could not be more wrong.

The bishops and the “peace and justice” crowd who seek to avoid war at all costs no doubt mean well. Nevertheless, it is not enough for these bishops to be well-meaning and carry the “high ground” of negotiation, knowing that if there is an attack, the Church “did all it could.” If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, all the good intentions in the world won’t bring back the millions of innocent men, women, and children who are annihilated in the blink of an eye. In fact, our silence, our passivity will make us guilty by our sin of omission.

The Church’s Just War Doctrine does of course say that deadly force should be a last resort. That said, if the other conditions of just war are met, it is not necessary to be attacked before defending oneself; sometimes, we have to strike lest we not live to even defend ourselves.

The bishops’ line of thinking is the same as Guam having a law that allows you to own a gun, but when an intruder comes into your house with his own gun, you cannot shoot him unless he shoots you first. Somehow, accepting that as the only moral alternative leaves us shaking our head at the complete lack of common sense.

Hopefully, cooler heads in Iran will prevail, and they will not escalate the crisis that they have created. As usual, international media is laying responsibility at the feet of Israel, demanding they show restraint when their enemies won’t. This includes Hizbollah, a terrorist organization supported by the Iranian government.

Ultimately, war is never a good thing, but sometimes it is necessary. We should not begin wars, but when aggressors are armed and threaten us and gather their armies at our border, it’s a safe bet what the next move will be. If the European powers had stopped Hitler at Munich, millions of lives would have been spared. Instead, the desire for peace at any cost wound up be costing more lives than any war in history.

Sometimes, it’s not enough to preach. Like Edmund Burke famously warned us, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If only the bishops would remember that—not just in war, but with abortion and the other horrors of modernity that they are so shy about condemning.

Shame on them.

Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, O.F.M., Cap., D.D. is not associated with the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace.

How Safe is Safe Sex by Jessica Rohr

How Safe is Safe Sex?

An Analysis of the Negative Health and Societal Effects of the Pill and Condom

Few man-made products can be said to be 100% effective, and the Pill and the condom, two of the most popular artificial contraceptive methods in the world, are not exceptions. The consumer base for contraceptives is ever-growing, yet few seem to have taken the potentially dangerous long- and short-term impacts into consideration. The negative impacts can be caused both by the express purposes and side effects or misuse of the Pill or condom. This article (and the ones to follow) is intended as a discerning tool for sexually active people who rely or intend to rely on artificial contraception, or even those who have not had intimate relations yet, for the sake of educating them on the impact their individual choices to use the Pill or the condom could have on them and society. In my series of articles, I will address the following questions:

1. How might the history of the Pill affect how society views it?
2. How might the history of the condom affect how society views it?
3. How can the Pill negatively affect one’s health?
4. How can the condom negatively affect one’s health?
5. How can the Pill and the condom negatively affect society?

Given that consumers of the condom and the birth control Pill use these popular forms of contraception to prevent pregnancy and/or the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, consumers should also take into account the potential negative health and societal effects of such product distribution and use, which, along with the accompanying backgrounds of the Pill and the condom, might change how they view contraception utilization.

How might the history of the Pill affect how society views it?

According to Jason Evert, B.A. (2008), a well-known counselor and author, oral contraception has been in use for centuries: “Some ancient civilizations created drinkable potions of plant and tree bark... extract from the silphium plant was so effective in preventing pregnancy that the plant was used to extinction over fifteen hundred years ago!” (p. 154-5). This puts aside the notion that oral contraception made its big break in the 1960s when the Pill was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who advocated and funded the initial development of the birth control Pill, believed that, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it” (as cited in Tatalovich, 1997, p. 124) As a eugenics idealist of the early 20th century, Sanger hoped to purge the American streets of Blacks, immigrants, and indigenous peoples by means of contraception, saying that they were “spawning...human beings who never should have been born” (as cited in Lawrence, 2010, p. 275). By promoting contraception, she would help “to create a race of thoroughbreds” (as cited in Endres et al, 1996, pp. 32-33). Another of Sanger’s objectives was to prevent illegal abortions, which she believed were often the result of “a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women” (as cited in Jensen, 2000, p. 74). While this may have been the case, Sanger also believed the marriage vow to be inconsequential (having had at least one affair herself) and that it should not stand in the way of a woman’s sexual satisfaction (as cited in Katz, 2003, p. 62), thus making contraceptive use essential to a woman’s lifestyle and abortion the ultimate fall-back plan. Indeed, Planned Parenthood (which Sanger had first co-founded under the name American Birth Control League in 1921), is the largest abortion provider in the United States, and “more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old” (PlannedParenthood.org, n.d).

Gregory Pincus, an American biologist, was tasked by Planned Parenthood to create an “ideal” and “harmless” form of birth control.

Within a few short years [following Pincus’ experimentation on animals], social workers in Puerto Rico were handing out oral tablets to women throughout the barrio...What these women did not know was that they were being used as test subjects...three women died of complications...the researchers changed the dosage and continued testing. (Evert, 2008, p. 156)

Eventually, in 1960 “the FDA approved the birth control pill for contraceptive use” (p. 155). The Pill approved at the time contained “five times as much estrogen as some of today’s birth control pills.... Estrogen enhances clotting of the blood...[which] led to many injuries related to blood clots, such as strokes and heart attacks...[the] FDA told doctors in 1970 to prescribe the lowest possible dose of estrogen available at the time” (p. 156). These high-dosage pills went down in sales, so they were subsequently distributed in developing countries for population control projects, “despite the safety concerns” (p. 156).
This condensed history of the Pill is unattractive, to say the least. The Pill has been consistently used to undermine any woman who was poor and not White, starting out as a eugenics tool, not as the element of liberation it is depicted as today. The Pill may have had its better-intended uses, such as how it may have been intended to lower abortion rates. However, abortion has only increased since the introduction of the Pill, and was legalized in the U.S.  not long after the Pill was. Abortion was legalized when Roe V. Wade was passed in 1973, according to Hansen in his 1980 article titled “The Supreme Court, the States, and Social Change: The Case of Abortion” (p. 20).

End notes:
Endres, K.L., & Lueck, T.L. (Eds.). (1996). Women’s periodicals in the united states: social and political issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Evert, J. (2008). If you really loved me. El Cajon, CA: Catholic Answers Inc.
Hansen, S. B. (1980). The Supreme Court, the States, and Social Change: The Case of Abortion. Peace & Change, 6(3), 20.

Jensen, C. (2000). Stories that changed america: muckrakers of the 30th century. New York, NY:

Seven Stories Press.

Katz, E. (Ed.). (2003). The selected papers of margaret sanger, vol. 1. [Publication information not

given]: U.S.A.

Lawrence, R.J. (2010). The marxist goliath among us: the david we need to be. [No place of

publication given]: U.S.A.

Tatalovich, R. (1997). The politics of abortion in the united states and canada: a comparative

study. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Y I am Catholic - Part 5: the case for the authenticity of the Gospels

Since everything we officially know about what Jesus said and did is derived from Scripture, particularly the Gospels, proof for the historicity of the Gospels is usually considered necessary in any Christian apologetic endeavor. (“Apologetic” means “reasoned explanation”).

Given our method of simply presenting possibilities and not proofs as we make the case for Christ and for Catholicism, it is not necessary for us to address the historicity of the Gospels in depth, but we should at least understand the debate.

Some of the main issues are: 1)there is no definitive proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual authors of the Gospels to which their names are affixed; 2) there are several noticeable incongruities between the different Gospel accounts; 3) we do not have in our possession an original copy of the Gospels, but simply copies of copies of copies which have come down to us through the centuries with all the possibilities of copying errors, human intrigue, exaggerations by over-zealous Christian copyists, and everything else that could possibly go wrong in the transmission of information and stories over time.

It is easy to see how atheists and those hostile to Christianity would use these facts to discredit the Gospels which form the basis for the Christian religion. And while there is overwhelming evidence in support of the historical reliability of the Gospels, the easy way to engage the naysayers is simply to hold them to their own standards as regards other works of antiquity whose historicity they appear not to question.

For example, the teachings of Plato and Socrates are considered to be pillars of classical literature. Yet not only do we not have any original manuscripts from Plato or Socrates, the origin of the manuscripts we do have is exponentially more obscure than the Gospels.

For instance, most of Plato’s works found in today’s libraries are actually the result of a reconstruction of various medieval sources, not the reprinting of an ancient manuscript found among the ruins of ancient Greece. And most of what we know of Socrates actually comes from these medieval reconstructions Plato, which makes the authenticity of the teachings of Socrates even more distant.

Yet the works of Plato and Socrates in their modern form are accepted by scholars and academics as credible with very little debate, as are the works of many other writers of antiquity for which we have no original manuscripts and whose writings are similarly reconstructed. In fact, if we are to make original manuscripts a standard for credibility of authorship we would have to throw out the entire works of Shakespeare since not one Shakespearean work comes down to us in his own hand.

In short, we can safely assert that there is more evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels than there is for any other document of similar or greater age.

But even if there wasn’t such evidence, it wouldn’t matter. The historical credibility of Christianity does not rise and fall with the latest investigation into the authorship of the Gospels. Christ did not leave us a book, he left us a Church and a teaching authority for that Church which comes down to us through the centuries and is embodied in that Church and its hierarchy of Pope and bishops we see today.

In fact, for first three centuries of Christianity, when the fledgling Church was under its period of greatest duress, there was no Bible as we know it. While there were letters and writings of various kinds floating about the different Christian communities during this period, there was no defined list of New Testament books until 401 A.D.

During Christianity’s earliest centuries, Christians lived and died by the teachings that were handed down to them from Christ through the Apostles and through their successors, in short, through His Church - the Church that still stands and instructs today. They did as Paul said: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught , whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thes 2:15)

What they were taught by word and epistle (letter), and what they were willing to die for is our next subject.

Go here for Part 6.