"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

You may be asking yourself, "What in the world has the 'vaccine gamble' got to do with apologetics?". Well, probably not a whole lot when it comes to salvation, redemption, forgiveness, Church hierarchy, or any of the many other more common topics. However, in the arena of Christian morality, it has become a hot-button issue. The Church has been clear in stating that parents must make an informed decision about whether to vaccinate children and that the well-being of others must be taken into account. Those statements have been interpreted in numerous ways which have led to heated debates on the subject. Erin Fielding, an Administrator at The Vaccine Gamble Facebook Page, has done a great job in presenting a Q&A which gives an introductory look into both sides, and has graciously given permission for me to reproduce it here. Q: So you're an anti-vaxxer now? A: Yes. Q: Don't you worry about your child getting sick from vaccine preventable dise...

This debate is only a subset of a much larger discussion which involved several people. I decided to post it here because it tended to stay on the general topic rather than veer off into endless trails as most online debates tend to do. The interlocutor, "J", began with a complaint about the Church having some requirement on how Catholics vote. He mentioned a recent newsletter which outlined the Church's teachings on the non-negotiables when it comes to supporting issues with our votes . However, his subsequent statements showed a belief in the justification/necessity of legal abortions, as he confirmed, " I support abortion at reasonable times because Christ calls me to have compassion for the suffering of women ", and stated that, for some women who are not ready to have a baby, abortion " is her only way out ". That makes my initial response/questions relevant and appropriate. My words in black , his words in green . I am only quoting the porti...

I ran across this post/question on a social media outlet. "JH" favors option #2 in his proposition to gradually reduce the number of abortions.  But has that actually ever worked? JH’s proposition: "This is particularly aimed at…the pro-birth brigade. First of all: Can we agree that we all want fewer abortions? We could even aim for zero abortions in the long run. The discussion then becomes how best to achieve this goal. There seem to be two opposing schools of thought. 1) Legislate against abortion. This is typically led by the religious right. The problem is that they go further and seek to deny education to women on abortion, contraception, sexual health, anything sex related at all really. 2) Allow abortion up to a date determined by viability of the foetus and provide educational resources to women (and men) in order to prevent pregnancy in the first place. This is typically led by the more liberal groups who use secular reasoning rather than emotion...

The caption read, “This is why we don't listen to the Gaithers” and the link led to a long article by David Cloud on why the Gaithers are not model Christians ("disobedient to the Word of God"). Cloud dives into several topics, but most of it can be boiled down to addressing false ecumenism (compromising truth for the sake of a false sense of unity) and a trend in this “judge not” mindset, where people are confusing the right judgment of actions with the wrong judgment of a person's soul. Whether the Gaithers are actually guilty of these, I didn't really see. It would be nice to hear both sides before making a judgment, and I'm simply not familiar with the Gaithers. However, on those two important topics, I do agree with David Cloud's overall position. This notion that we can all come together in different faiths with different views about what Truth is, and have “unity”, is false. We cannot compromise Truth for the sake of unity, because in doing...

I was recently directed to a website belonging to John Lilley, an author of at least three books on Christianity. One of those books is titled “ Hell is a Mistranslation ”. One article on his website, titled “ The Early Christians did not Believe in Hell ” served as a sort of prologue to the book, explaining why Lilley believes “hell” to be a mistranslation and explaining that neither Christ nor the early Christian writers from the first several centuries believed in “hell” as we understand it today. I have attempted several times to re-access his webpage lately, but have been unable. I continue to get a message that the webpage (johnlilley.org) has expired. Whether the page will come up again, I do not know. What I do know is that there are at least a handful of people who have recently read his article and were misled by it, and so I am going to refute it. Actually, I’m going to let Jesus and the early Christians refute it; I’ll just post their words. Christ, Himself, as w...

Many of us have been approached with the " are you saved " ice-breaker. And by now, if you've either read your Bibles or studied any amount of apologetics, you know the answer: " Yes! I was saved in Christ at my Baptism (1Pet 3:20-21). I HAVE been saved (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5,8; 2Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5); I am BEING saved (Phil 2:12; 1Pet1:9); and I WILL be saved IF I persevere to the end (Mt 7:21; Mt 10:22; Mt 19:16-17; Mt 24:13; 1Cor 9:27; 1Cor 10:11-12, etc…). But sometimes we just want a quick Scripture reference to show how we are saved. EVERYONE knows we are saved by believing in Christ, which involves obedience to His Will (Jn 3:36). But what about the other ways we are saved? Straight from the Bible, here you go! We are saved... By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31) By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9) By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:20-21; Titus 3:5) By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6) By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6) ...

-You know what causes that, right? -Did you guys plan it like that? -Will this be your last? -WOW, that's a lot of kids! -It's about time you got a pet. -You've got your hands full! -Are you Catholic, or Mormon? -That's just too many children! -How can you afford them all? -Won't that be a burden on society? -You need to get that "fixed". - What a beautiful family! This is just a sample of comments my wife and I (and other couples we know) have heard from friends, family, and perfect strangers over the years, beginning with our third child, believe it or not. (Isn't "three" supposed to be the new "two"?) I admit that I have made some of them myself, to other "large" families. I put "large" in quotations because, the fact is, families with more children than *I* am accustomed to aren't necessarily "large"; they're just families. But there is one question I have never be...

Are you Church history buff looking for an opportunity to participate in the restoration of a historical Christian monument? Or an architectural history nerd who would love the opportunity to help restore the very last building design by the man behind Annunciation Catholic Church's bell tower? A philanthropist looking for a great cause to donate to for the betterment of society, history, and faith? Need to donate some money to a charitable organization for tax purposes, but want to find something really worthwhile? Or do you simply have some spare cash or other assets looking for a good place to go? Look no further! The " Hail, Full of Grace Capital Campaign " has exactly what you are looking for! From the campaign homepage, we learn that " Annunciation Catholic Church is a vibrant and historic parish community that dates back to 1869. For over 140 years, our church has been ministering to the needs of our greater Houston community. As the mother church...

I recently toyed with an online questionnaire, "How Many Children Can You Handle?". Obviously the poll is meant for good fun, not as a means by which an adult determines how many children he/she should have. But I do wonder how many people take these things seriously. Judging by some of the comments, it seems many people do. Anyhow, I answered the questions honestly. I'd rather spend my free time on the couch; and a glass of wine seems far more relaxing to me than reading stories or playing outside on a trampoline; and I really don't like driving a mini-van. I mean, come on ! A mini-van?!?! Never mind one that's 16 years old and has stains from " no one know what it is " that have been there since " I have no clue ". I like comfort and quiet. I like CLEAN cars and prefer a sedan to an SUV. So, I should not have been surprised at the results of my "test". " You can handle one child ." After a solid five minutes of laugh...

On his CARM website, Matt Slick argues that the Catholic Church did not give us God’s Word.   And so, the Church would agree, because we believe the source of God’s Word is God.   He also is the source of authority in His Church.   However, Mr. Slick seems willing to misrepresent the Church’s claims and teachings, and so is willing to engage in deception in order to make his point.   This deception will be evident throughout his article, and will show itself no more than two sentences into his argument.   The Catholic Church, what many people today call the “Roman Catholic Church”, did indeed decide which books and letters were to be included in the Canon of Scripture.   Martin Luther, one of the so-called "Pillars of the Reformation” made this point clear.   To claim otherwise, there are some things that Mr. Slick is going to have to explain.   Among them are:   1) how did the Church come to know, without doubt, which books belong ...