8 things to know and share about Pentecost

Where did the feast of Pentecost come from, what happened on it, and what does it mean for us today? Here are 8 things to know and share . . .

The original day of Pentecost saw dramatic events that are important to the life of the Church.

But where did the feast of Pentecost come from?

How can we understand what happened on it?

And what does it mean for us today?

Here are 8 things to know and share about it . . .

 

1. What does the name “Pentecost” mean?

It comes from the Greek word for “fiftieth” (pentecoste). The reason is that Pentecost is the fiftieth day (Greek, pentecoste hemera) after Easter Sunday (on the Christian calendar).

This name came into use in the late Old Testament period and was inherited by the authors of the New Testament.

 

2. What else is this feast known as?

In the Old Testament, it is referred to by several names:

  • The feast of weeks
  • The feast of harvest
  • The day of first-fruits

Today in Jewish circles it is known as Shavu`ot (Hebrew, “weeks”).

It goes by various names in different languages.

In England (and English), it has also been known as “Whitsunday” (white Sunday). This name is presumably derived from the white baptismal garments of those recently baptized.

 

3. What kind of feast was Pentecost in the Old Testament?

KEEP READING.

Pope Francis and lying to save life

In World War II, some people lied to protect Jewish individuals and save their lives. Was this right? Here's some information you might want to be aware of.

Back during World War II, some people lied to save Jewish lives.

More recently, Lila Rose has used undercover tactics to expose Planned Parenthood.

At issue is the question of whether it is every okay to lie, particularly when you’re trying to save lives.

We live in a violent world, and the issue keeps coming up in human history.

Here is some information you might want to be aware of involving Pope Francis.

 

On the One Hand

Before we get to the Pope Francis material, we should note that there is a strong view in the history of Catholic thought that says lying of any kind, for any reason, is always wrong.

This view has been endorsed by some of the biggest names in Catholic theology, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

There have been other views proposed as well, though they have not been the majority view, and it does not appear that  the Magisterium has infallibly settled the question.

Indeed, the original edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church contained a definition of lying that seemed to endorse a proposal made some decades ago that restricted what countes as a lie to telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive a person who had the right to know the truth.

If this was lying in the technical sense, then it would imply that some cases of lying in the broader, everyday sense (telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive, without specifying whether the deceived person has a right the truth) would not be morally wrong. Some such acts could, potentially, be justified if the person to whom the (broad-sense) lie was told had no right to the truth.

The fact that the original edition of the Catechism included this statement is a notable indicator that the matter has not been infallibly settled, and advocates of the lying-is-always-wrong view should bear in mind that the history of the question is not uniform and does not appear to be infallibly settled.

 

On the Other Hand

Although the original edition of the Catechism seemed to endorse the restricted view of what counted as lying, they changed it.

Now the relevant passage defines lying this way:

To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error [CCC 2483].

(Remember the “or act” part. It’s going to be important.)

When the Holy See released the changes to the original edition of the Catechism, they did so without commentary, and so Catholic moral theologians have tried to discern the significance of this change.

Was the Holy See endorsing the historical majority view? Or was it simply not wanting to endorse restricted view and defaulting to a more general formulation of the kind one would expect in a catechetical text, leaving the technical questions to the experts to hash out over time, under the guidance of the Magisterium?

Whichever was the case, the publication of this new wording would not constitute an infallible determination of the issue any more than the publication of the original wording of the Catechism did.

Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger was at pains to explain that the treatment of a subject in the Catechism does not change the weight the Magisterium assigns to a particular teaching.

Whatever weight it had before the publication of the Catechism, that it is the weight it had afterwards.

Read more about that here.

However, advocates of the lying-is-sometimes-not-wrong view should bear in mind that the historical majority position and at least the wording in the current edition of the Catechism is against them.

 

Part of the Problem

Part of the problem here is that we are torn between two powerful intuitions.

On the one hand, we have a powerful intuition–planted in human nature by God himself–that lying is wrong.

That’s a human universal. It appears in every culture. Indeed, cultures could not even form among people who didn’t have the level of mutual trust that the anti-lying ethic is meant to foster.

On the other hand, we also have an intuition that in some cases deceiving another person is not wrong, particularly when that person is an aggressor and the stakes are high.

Thus police officers adopt ruses when trying to catch criminals. Spies do it to serve their nations. Military forces do it to achieve victory on the battlefield.

How precisely these two intuitions–the need to tell the truth and the need to save lives–are to be squared is something too complex to go into here.

I will not be proposing any solutions to this question, and I await further guidance from the Magisterium.

However, I would like to call the reader’s attention to some material that has recently become available in English.

 

The Actions of Church Officials

KEEP READING.

What do baby names tell us about the reliability of the Gospels?

What do baby names tell us about the reliability of the Gospels?

Suppose, one day, you’re reading a historical account of life in Alaska in the 1920s and one of the main characters in the account is named Sting.

“That’s surprising,” you think.

Suppose that Sting is portrayed as married to a woman named Oprah.

“That’s improbable,” you recognize.

Then you read that Sting has a brother named Spock.

You say to yourself: “Okay. Something is wrong here.”

What is it? And what does all this have to do with the gospels?

You might be surprised, but the names of the figures mentioned in the gospels actually provide evidence that they’re true.

Here’s the story . . .

 

The basic problem

Fundamentally, the problem in our starting example is that the names “Sting,” “Oprah,” and “Spock” do not sound like they come from Alaska in the 1920s.

They sound like the names of pop culture figures from the second half of the 20th century (the 1960s and after, certainly).

There is no way that these names would be plausible in an account of what life was like in Alaska between 1920 and 1929.

Your recognition of this fact shows that you know something about the names that were common at this time–and that you can spot false reports of them.

 

So what about the gospels?

Linguists have devoted a lot of study to the question of how parents choose the names of their babies.

It’s a regular feature of textbooks on linguistics.

There are definite–but usually unnoticed–patterns to how babies are named.

But the actual ways they are named reveal what is on their parents’ minds–or at least what’s going on in their subconsciouses.

Now here’s the thing: Recently scholars have been looking at the frequencies with which names occurred in ancient Jewish sources, both inside and outside of Palestine, in the centuries before and after Christ.

What did they find?

KEEP READING.

9 things to know and share about the “Third Secret” of Fatima

The "Third Secret" of Fatima is the most famous private revelation of the 20th century. Here are 9 things to know and share with friends about it . . .

The apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima are famous for the three-part “secret” they conveyed.

Of these, the “third secret” is the most famous, because it was kept confidential at the Vatican for many years.

Only a few popes and a select few others read it–until the year 2000, when Pope John Paul II published it for the whole world to read.

Here are 9 things to know and share with friends about it . . .

 

NOTE: We’ve already looked at the apparitions at Fatima in general and at the first two parts of the secret. For information on that, you should click here.

 

1) What is the third part of the secret or “third secret”?

Here is what Sr. Lucia wrote:

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’

And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the holy father’.

Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions.

Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God [The Message of Fatima [MF], “Third Part of the ‘Secret'”].

 

2) What does the secret refer to?

In a letter to John Paul II date May 12, 1982, Sr. Lucia wrote:

“The third part of the secret refers to Our Lady’s words [in the second part of the secret]: ‘If not, [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated’ (13-VII-1917)” (MF, Introduction).

In general terms, then, the third part of the secret refers to the twentieth-century conflict between the Church and Communist Russia.

 

3) What does the angel with the flaming sword symbolize?

KEEP READING.

The Weekly Francis – 12 May 2013

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 1 May 2013 – 12 May 2013 (subscribe hereget as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):

Angelus/Regina Caeli

General Audiences

Speeches

Papal Tweets

  • “Let us ask our Lord to help us bear shining witness to his mercy and his love in every area of our Christian lives.” @pontifex, 6 May 2013
  • “Do not be content to live a mediocre Christian life: walk with determination along the path of holiness.” @pontifex, 7 May 2013
  • “I have come that they may have life and have it in abundance, says Jesus. This is where true wealth is found, not in material things!” @pontifex, 8 May 2013
  • “The Holy Spirit brings to our hearts a most precious gift: profound trust in God’s love and mercy.” @pontifex, 9 May 2013
  • “The Holy Spirit helps us to view others with fresh eyes, seeing them always as brothers and sisters in Jesus, to be respected and loved.” @pontifex, 10 May 2013
  • “Let us pray for the many Christians in the world who still suffer persecution and violence. May God grant them the courage of fidelity.” @pontifex, 12 May 2013

The eBook version of The Weekly Francis

9 things to know and share about Fatima

On May 13, 1917, the three "little shepherds" received a powerful revelation from Our Lady of Fatima. Here are 9 things to know and share with friends . . .

May 13 is the optional memorial of Our Lady of Fatima.

Fatima is the most prominent approved apparition of the 20th century.

It became famous the world over, particular for its three “secrets.”

The third and final secret was kept in the Vatican for many years, but in 2000, it was released to the world by John Paul II.

Here are 9 things to know and share with friends . . .

 

1) What happened at Fatima, Portugal?

A young shepherd girl, Lucia dos Santos, said that she experienced supernatural visitations as early as 1915, two years before the famous appearances of the Virgin Mary.

In 1917, she and two of her cousins, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, were working as shepherds tending their families’ flocks. On May 13, 1917, the three children saw an apparition of Our Lady. She told them, among other things, that she would return once a month for six months.

At Our Lady’s third appearance, on July 13, Lucia was shown the secret of Fatima. She reportedly turned pale and cried out with fear, calling Our Lady by name. There was a thunderclap, and the vision ended.

The children again saw the Virgin on September 13. In the sixth and final appearance, on October 13, a dramatic outward sign was given to those gathered to witness the event. After the clouds of a rainstorm parted, numerous witnesses—some as far as 40 miles away—reported seeing the sun dance, spin, and send out colored rays of light.

 

2) What happened after the main apparitions?

As World War I raged across Europe, an epidemic of Spanish flu swept the globe. It erupted in America and was spread by soldiers being sent to distant lands. This epidemic killed an estimated twenty million people.

Among them were Franciso and Jacinta, who contracted the illness in 1918 and died in 1919 and 1920, respectively. Lucia entered the convent.

On June 13, 1929, at the convent chapel in Tuy, Spain, Lucia had another mystical experience in which she saw the Trinity and the Blessed Virgin. Mary told her:

“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father in union with all the bishops of the world to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means” (S. Zimdars-Schwartz, Encountering Mary, 197).

On October 13, 1930, the bishop of Leiria (now Leiria-Fatima) proclaimed the apparitions at Fatima authentic and worthy of assent.

 

3) How was the “secret” of Fatima written down?

KEEP READING.

Did Dinosaurs Die Before the Fall?

Did animals die before the Fall of Man?

St. Paul tells us:

“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22). 

Does this mean that there was no death–of any kind–before the Fall of Man?

Would that mean that no animals, plants, or microbes died?

What about animals that are carnivores?

Were lions vegetarians? How about alligators? Or sharks?

How about carnivores like Tyrannosaurus Rex?

Let’s take a look at the subject . . .

 

A Key Concept

To set the stage, I need to introduce a key concept: entropy.

Entropy is a very important concept in the sciences. Put simply, entropy is the tendency of things to run down or break down over time.

Systems that are subject to entropy tend to dissipate energy and lose organization over time.

Entropy is the reason why the stars shine, and it’s the reason that you get hungry.

As stars burn their fuel, the heat and light they produce spreads out into the universe. It dissipates.

If stars weren’t subject to entropy then all the energy they generate wouldn’t dissipate. It would stay bundled up in the star.

As your body burns fuel (food), you dissipate energy, too–partly in the form of body heat. That’s why you need to eat, to replenish your body’s fuel.

If you weren’t subject to entropy, your energy would never flag, and you wouldn’t need to eat.

Now here’s the thing . . .

 

The Whole Material Universe Is Entropic

The entire physical universe, so far as we can tell, is entropic, or subject to entropy.

All material systems run down or break down over time.

A seeming, partial exception is life. Living things, in some respects, seem to gather energy and create organization.

Thus some have tried to define life in terms of a kind of weird anti-entropy.

But the exception is, at best, partial, because all living things die. Ultimately, entropy overcomes every living organism.

So what about death before the Fall?

And what about our prospects for immortality after the General Resurrection?

KEEP READING.

Did Animals Die Before the Fall?

St. Paul tells us:

“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Does this mean that there was no death–of any kind–before the Fall of Man?

Would that mean that no animals, plants, or microbes died?

What about animals that are carnivores?

Were lions vegetarians? How about alligators? Or sharks?

Let’s take a look at the subject . . .

 

A Key Concept

To set the stage, I need to introduce a key concept: entropy.

Entropy is a very important concept in the sciences. Put simply, entropy is the tendency of things to run down or break down over time.

Systems that are subject to entropy tend to dissipate energy and lose organization over time.

Entropy is the reason why the stars shine, and it’s the reason that you get hungry.

As stars burn their fuel, the heat and light they produce spreads out into the universe. It dissipates.

If stars weren’t subject to entropy then all the energy they generate wouldn’t dissipate. It would stay bundled up in the star.

As your body burns fuel (food), you dissipate energy, too–partly in the form of body heat. That’s why you need to eat, to replenish your body’s fuel.

If you weren’t subject to entropy, your energy would never flag, and you wouldn’t need to eat.

Now here’s the thing . . .

 

The Whole Material Universe Is Entropic

The entire physical universe, so far as we can tell, is entropic, or subject to entropy.

All material systems run down or break down over time.

A seeming, partial exception is life. Living things, in some respects, seem to gather energy and create organization.

Thus some have tried to define life in terms of a kind of weird anti-entropy.

But the exception is, at best, partial, because all living things die. Ultimately, entropy overcomes every living organism.

So what about death before the Fall?

And what about our prospects for immortality after the General Resurrection?

 

St. Thomas Aquinas on Material Things

Although the term “entropy” hadn’t been coined in his day, St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that it was the tendency of all material things to break down over time.

In his day, they referred to this as the tendency of material things to “corrupt” and to the idea that material things are “corruptible.”

It’s the same basic insight people have today; they just used different language to express it.

Given that man has a material body, how does Aquinas explain the idea that death entered the world through sin?

 

Give Me Immortality or Give Me Death!

Aquinas’s basic answer is that, because man’s body is material, it would have a natural tendency to run down and break down–to “corrupt”–over time.

Thus, in that sense, death is natural to man.

The human body will eventually die . . . unless something stops that from happening.

Nature can be supported and elevated by grace, though, and so it is within the power of God’s omnipotence to prevent death.

And God chose to do this. He gave man the grace needed to avoid dying, but we lost this grace through the Fall.

Aquinas writes:

Now God, who is the author of man, is all-powerful, wherefore when He first made man, He conferred on him the favor of being exempt from the necessity resulting from such a matter: which favor, however, was withdrawn through the sin of our first parents.

Accordingly death is both natural on account of a condition attaching to matter, and penal on account of the loss of the divine favor preserving man from death [Summa Theologiae, II-II:164:1 ad 1; cf. I:97:1].

This also explains how we will be immortal after the General Resurrection: After the General Resurrection, God will restore to us the grace needed to prevent our bodies from breaking down over time.

Indeed, he will do far more than that.

So much for man.

 

What About the Animals?

Hypothetically, God could have done the same thing for the animals (and all other life forms) that he did for us: He could have made them initially immune to death and then removed this grace when man fell.

But did he?

Aquinas doesn’t think so.

He writes:

In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals.

But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.

Nor does Bede’s gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some.

Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals [Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2].

Aquinas thus holds that it was not all death that entered the world through man’s sin, but human death.

In his view, animals could and did kill and eat each other before the Fall.

Can we do anything to test this view?

 

Good Morning, Starshine

You have to be careful looking to Genesis with an eye toward mining scientific ideas out of it.

The purpose of the creation accounts in Genesis is to present the work of the Creator in a religious and theological way rather than in a scientific way.

Thus John Paul II warned:

Above all, this [creation] text has a religious and theological importance. It doesn’t contain significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of the individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm or positive contributions of substantial interest [General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986].

But it is worth noting that, even on a highly literalist reading, Genesis does envision the pre-Fall universe in a way that suggest the existence of death for non-humans.

First, there is the fact that the sun and the stars are shining before the Fall.

Second, there is the fact that God gives Adam and Eve permission to eat the various fruits found in the Garden of Eden (except for one). Thus, Adam and Eve needed food.

Both of these facts indicate that the pre-Fall universe was subject to entropy.

Living things in the pre-Fall universe would have had the same tendency to run down, break down, and die–unless supported by God’s grace, as in the case of man.

 

Death Visits the Plant Kingdom

We can go even further, though, because of God’s permission to eat fruit.

That means death. Specifically, the death of the fruit’s flesh (and its seeds, if those get chewed up, too).

The fruit’s flesh (and its seeds) are alive. They’re made of living cells.

The seeds are even little fruit embryos, which makes them independent organisms.

Of course, they aren’t human.

They aren’t rational beings, so they don’t have rights or a right to life, and it’s okay to eat them.

But they do die when we eat and digest them.

The same thing is true of other plant matter we eat.

 

Dinosaur Death Before the Fall?

The subjection of the pre-Fall universe to entropy and the existence of plant death before the Fall have significant implications for the question of animal death.

We know from these that, because of entropy, every living organism (including animals) would die unless supported by grace.

We also do not have any indication that life forms other than man had access to the grace needed for immortality (the tree of life). Nothing is said about them eating from it.

And we know, because of the permission to eat plants, that some living things did die, either on the level of cells (as in the case of a fruit’s flesh) or on the case of an organism (in the case of a seed).

Absent any particular reason to group animals with humans rather than plants, one would naturally expect animals to have died prior to the Fall as well.

That includes dinosaurs.

This conclusion seems reinforced by the fact that some of them are carnivores.

And it seems abundantly reinforced by the fossil record.

Given what we now know, it looks like Aquinas was right: It was human death, not all death, that is the result of the Fall of Man.

 

Back to St. Paul

This seems to be what St. Paul had in mind in the passage we began with.

Note that he spoke in terms of human death and resurrection–of death and resurrection coming to those who are “in Adam” and “in Christ” (“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”).

The Christian faith does not envision animals fitting those descriptions.

St. Paul himself thus seems to be speaking of human death entering the world.

The same is true of the parallel passage in Romans 5:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned [Rom. 5:12].

7 things Pope Francis wants you to know about Jesus’ Ascension

Recently Pope Francis explained Jesus' mysterious Ascension into heaven. Here are 7 things he wants you to know about it.

Whether your diocese celebrates the Ascension of Christ on Thursday or Sunday, the time is upon us.

Recently, Pope Francis gave an explanation of the Ascension, what it means, and how it affects our lives.

Here are 7 things he wants you to know.

 

1) Your Holiness, what is a good starting point for understanding the Ascension?

[Pope Francis:] Let us start from the moment when Jesus decided to make his last pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

St Luke notes: “When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Lk 9:51).

While he was “going up” to the Holy City, where his own “exodus” from this life was to occur, Jesus already saw the destination, heaven, but he knew well that the way which would lead him to the glory of the Father passed through the Cross, through obedience to the divine design of love for mankind.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that: “The lifting up of Jesus on the cross signifies and announces his lifting up by his Ascension into heaven” (n. 662).

 

2) What can we learn from this?

We too should be clear in our Christian life that entering the glory of God demands daily fidelity to his will, even when it demands sacrifice and sometimes requires us to change our plans.

The Ascension of Jesus actually happened on the Mount of Olives, close to the place where he had withdrawn to pray before the Passion in order to remain in deep union with the Father: Once again we see that prayer gives us the grace to be faithful to God’s plan.

 

3) How does Luke’s Gospel describe the Ascension?

KEEP READING.

The Name of the Doctor

They're about to reveal Doctor Who's name. Here are some thoughts . . .

We’re just about up to the final episode of the current season of Doctor Who.

The title of the episode is “The Name of the Doctor,” and it promises to reveal the Doctor’s actual name, something that has never been revealed in the 50-year history of the show.

We’ll apparently learn the Doctor’s name–and why he’s kept is secret all this time–at 8 p.m. on Saturday, May 18, when “The Name of the Doctor” airs on BBC America (or a few hours earlier, if you’re in the U.K.).

Here are a few thoughts . . .

 

Will They Really Reveal It?

I’m guessing that they will.

This runs the risk of taking an element of the mystery out of the show, but they’ve been teasing the audience with the idea for some time, and recently they’ve ramped that up in a big way.

With all the teasing, with titling the season’s final episode the way they did, and with putting “His Secret Revealed” on the promotional poster (above), they’ll have a lot of hacked off fans if they fail to deliver.

 

How Might They Cheat The Audience?

I can think of at least a couple of ways.

KEEP READING.