From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Family Dilemma, RC/Prot diffs
Date: 13 Dec 92 04:57:03 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

>1) How can my daughter be born with sin?

   Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, the nature of all humans, while
basically good, has become damaged, thus making them suspectible to
sin.

>2) If one believes that Christ died for all sins -- past, present, and
>   future -- why is original sin excluded?  Is there a biblical
>   reference to this?

   Original Sin is not excluded.  Our Baptism removes the stain of
Original Sin precisely because of Christ's sacrifice.  You are
confusing God's forgiveness with how it is applied.  There are several
biblical references for this.  Romans 5:12 is one such verse:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

>3) Why do I need someone to approach God on my behalf?  I like to think
>   that God hears even a small child's prayer without the benefit of an
>   intermediary.

   He does.  I'm not sure what you are referring to.  If it is the
intercession of the Saints, this is no different than asking some
other Christian to pray for you.  The Catholic Church teaches that
those who have died in Christ are certainly part of the Church.
Asking a Saint (the Church Triumphant) to pray for you can be better
than a living person (the Church Militant), because, since they are
in the presence of God, they are better able to know His will.

>4) Is the Bible perfect in that it's God's word?  Or is it God's
>   perfect word as told by imperfect man?

   Both are true.  Certainly the Bible is both inspired and
infallible.  That does not make everything in it literally true,
however.  The Church is responsible for interpreting Scripture.  As
far as being written by imperfect men: yes, they were imperfect, but
that does not mean they did not write what God wanted them to.

>5) Should women be pastors?

   It depends on whether or not you're talking about a sacramental
priesthood.  The Catholic Church teaches that the priesthood is
sacramental, and that Christ did not intend women to be proper
"matter" for the priesthood.  That is, they are spiritually unable to
become priests.  This does not imply any spiritual inferiority, just
as the inability of men to bear children does not imply a physical
inferiority of men.  We also have St. Paul's admonition against women
teaching in church; however that is not the main rationale.

>6) Should clergy be allowed to marry?

   The Catholic Church has priestly celibacy in her Latin Rite as a
Church discipline, not a doctrine.  A discipline is a rule imposed by
the Church, not as coming from God, but certainly within the Church's
authority (cf. Matthew 18:18: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.").

   One of the main reasons for priestly celibacy is that it allows the
priest better to serve God and His people.  A married priest would
have to care for a wife and children, leaving less time to serve God.

   Not all rites of the Catholic Church require priestly celibacy.
For example, many of the Eastern rites allow married men to be
ordained.  None, however, allow priests to marry, once ordained.

>7) Could a loving God deny an infant entry into heaven b/c he isn't
>   baptized?  What if the child is stillborn?  Is baptism retroactive
>   in this case?  What of aborted babies?

   The answer to this question is unknown.  One can only guess.

>8) When do you distinguish between a rite and a ritual?

   I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you have any examples?  As far as I
am aware, the word "ritual" is not used in the various liturgies,
although "rite" is.

>9) I think I understand the rationale of fasting, but why are dietary
>   restrictions necessary?

   Are you referring to abstinance from meat on certain Fridays?  This
is not a "dietary restriction," but rather again Church discipline.
The key word here is "abstinance."  This implies that one is doing
without something that is good.  The Jewish dietary laws, on the other
hand, had to do with not eating something that was not considered
good, but rather, unclean.  I believe the law of abstinance is not
merely dietary, but also includes sexual intercourse for married
couples.  Don't most Protestants also give up something for Lent?  The
Catholic law of abstinance is no different from this, except for
perhaps being somewhat more "severe."

>10) Should communion be open to all who believe in Christ, regardless
>of denomination?

   No.  First, we need to consider what the Catholic Eucharist means,
or rather, _is_.  We believe the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ.  It is not merely a remembrance, nor is it
merely a spiritual presence.  Those who do not believe this should not
receive Communion in a Catholic church.  For one we have the
scriptural reference 1 Corinthians 11:29: "For he that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not
discerning the Lord's body."  We also have Matthew 7:6, in which Jesus
tells us not to give holy things to those who cannot appreciate their
value: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye
your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and
turn again and rend you."  Note that I do not intend to compare
Protestants to dogs or swine; I'm just using Christ's analogy for
those who cannot appreciate something we believe to be holy.

   Also, the Eucharist symbolizes the unity of the Church.  Admitting
non-Catholics, who are not in communion with the Catholic Church, to
the Eucharist, which is both the reality and a symbol of the communion
of the Church, would be nothing more than a farce.  Receiving
Communion is not a passive action; rather it says, "I believe that
Christ is truly present in this "bread" and "wine," and I am one with
the Catholic Church and believe what she teaches."  Therefore a
non-Catholic receiving Communion would be nothing more than a lie.

>My intent isn't to critique the Catholic faith.  I really just want to
>know their point of view.  I can't discuss this with my in-laws b/c
>there are still some hard feelings that my husband has joined a non-
>Catholic church.  (Some people considered not attending our daughter's
>baptism b/c it was in the U.M. church.)

   This may be hard for Protestants to understand.  Catholics, in
order to be permitted to marry a non-Catholic, must promise to do
their best to raise their children in the Catholic Faith.  Those who
refuse to do so, or else later break this promise, are really putting
their Catholic relatives on the spot by, for example, having a child
baptised in a non-Catholic church and expecting them to attend the
cermony.  For the dedicated Catholic, it is truly a dilemma as to
whether to attend such a ceremony in order to maintain peace in the
family, or not to attend in order to avoid participating in at least
an implicit rejection of the Catholic Church.

   I'm glad to answer your questions.  You might also consider reading
_Catholic and Christian_ by Alan Schreck, which I haven't read myself
(although I have heard the author speak), but I understand it is a
good explanation of Catholicism to non-Catholics.  Also, _Catholicism
and Fundamentalism_ (which I have read) by Karl Keating (whom I've
met) is a good explanation of many of the Catholic beliefs that are
more controversial among non-Catholics, especially Fundamentalists
(I'm not implying that's what Methodists are).  It's actually directed
at Catholics, but is still good.  It might sound somewhat abrasive to
non-Catholics, however.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

[Thanks.  This is a sufficiently concise summary of questions we often
get about Catholic Christianity that I'm saving it for the FAQ list.
In my fantasy world, it would be possible to ask questions like this
and get answers like this without touching off a flame war.  But from
experience I know that no red-blooded Protestant flamer can resist
responding to a posting like this.  Arrrrggggghhhhhh.  Prove me wrong!
Please!  --clh]