Dear Catholic Exchange:
Why do you offer articles by non-Catholics, such as Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, and reviews of non-Catholic Christian pop artists such as the Katinas?
Teri
Dear Teri:
Our tagline, Teri, is “Your Faith, Your Life, Your World.” Catholics are called to be “in the world but not of the world,” and not everybody in the world is Catholic, of course. Medved, Prager, Gaffney and others are ecumenical and very respectful of the Catholic people and Catholic faith. So I've invited them in as contributors to our portal. Their perspective immeasurably enhances our offering.
In JMJ,
Tom Allen
Editor, CE
***
Dear Catholic Exchange:
Remember – there are those of us non-Catholics who are very interested in and inspired by
Saint Therese's story. Wouldn't you agree that the airing of this movie would benefit more than just “Catholic families?”
After all, sainthood is above and beyond any religion.
Marti Walker
non-Catholic (surprise)
Dear Marti:
True! Good point. I guess we were just playing to our “base” on that one. Ideally the film will come to inspire those who don't know Christ at all!
Sincerely,
Tom Allen
Editor, CE
***
Dear Catholic Exchange:
I am a Christian but do not proclaim any one denomination at this time. I have been researching the Catholic Church over the last several months and have been trying to read through all the teachings of the Church.
I am a physician and thus I have a strong science background. There are many things in the Bible that cannot be fully explained and have to be taken on faith. The healing power of Jesus, I have faith in. However, I doubt that a man once paralyzed secondary to a severed spinal cord, miraculously and spontaneously, had billions of neurons reconnected to walked again.
Rather, it makes more sense that this man had a mental affliction that prevented him from walking. Perhaps it was any one of his sinful ways – but his faith in Jesus removed those sins and he was made to walk again. This I have faith in.
So as I race back through time, I have faith in all that the Bible teaches until I get to the birth of Christ. Christ was born to the Virgin Mary. The birth and conception of Christ seems to be glossed over in all the teachings.
Did God come down from the Heavens in the form of a man so that Jesus could be conceived? Perhaps in the form of Joseph. Or perhaps in the form of an Angel?
Most people just tell me to take the conception of Christ “on faith.” No one really wants to even discuss the topic because it brings up certain questions that are scary if they are answered the wrong way.
Mostly it's take on faith because we have no data other than the words of the gospel and the end result: the birth of Jesus. God does not give us any clues about the mechanics miracles.
To discuss the conception is too taboo for most people. However, God gave me the gift of independent thought. I hope I am not abusing this gift by asking such diffcult questions, but this is one of the last hurdles I have to overcome to be fully comitted in both my heart and my mind to Jesus Christ. Any information you have on this issue or people I may be able to discuss it with, would be very much appreciated.
Thanks you for your time.
Jason
Dear Jason:
Good for you! Interesting stuff, ain't it? (I'm a convert myself.)
I would argue that these hurdles are your imagination overpowering your reason. If you accept that Jesus came back from the dead, reconnecting some neurons is child's play. And there's nothing in *reason* to say that God (who has, after all, created neurons in the first place) could not re-create them miraculously. He appears to have done exactly this in the miracle of the loaves and fishes, creating not just the neural network, but the entire fish.
With regards to your hurdle on the conception of Jesus in Scripture, there is clear teaching contained within the Bible.
“How shall this be, since I have no husband?” And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” (Luke 1:34-35)
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:18-25).
Seem pretty straightforward teachings. Any pregnancy by Joseph is bluntly denied by the evangelists. And there's no real point in introducing an angel into the process. The basic biblical teaching is summed up in the Creed: “For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”
Once again, to swallow the camel of the resurrection but strain at the gnat of the Virgin Birth is largely a triumph of imagination over reason. We know (or think we know) how babies are made. We don't have any idea how the dead are raised. And so when a Baby is made in miraculous way by Him who makes all babies, our imagination balks that this is somehow a bigger miracle than the Resurrection (since, particularly if we are scientifically trained, we know something of the biological processes that God normally uses to conceive children). But is not bound by such processes. Only we are. If he chooses to do something else, that's up to him.
I hope this is of some help. There's no real “taboo” to disccussing the conception of Christ. It's just that nobody knows *how* God did it anymore than they know how Jesus rose from the grave. Sacred Scripture attributes the conception to Holy Spirit himself and specifically denies a creature (which Joseph or an angel would be) had any part in this miracle. This makes sense since Jesus is “God from God” not “God from human parents” or “God from an angel”.
Blessings on your continued research.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
