Why do Catholics have a different version of the Ten Commandments than some Protestants? For instance, they split up the first commandment, and make the ninth and tenth commandments one; we split up the “do not covet” into the ninth and tenth commandments. A dogmatic Evangelical friend of mine claims that we combined their first two into our first in order to justify our “idolatry.” 

One would have to be dogmatic to sustain that, because the evidence just isn’t there to support it. Tough as it may be for your friend’s theory, I’m afraid the truth is a lot more mundane than another alleged Catholic plot. 

The Commandments are enumerated in the Book of Exodus and in the Book of Deuteronomy (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2056). Deuteronomy is a later text than Exodus, and displays a more developed moral sense by dedicating a separate commandment with regard to a man’s wife (Deut. 5:21). “Property” follows separately (Deut. 5:22), instead of including the wife as part of the husband’s property, as Exodus does (Exod. 20:17). St Augustine, and many Latin Fathers of the Church, accepted the enumeration of the commandments offered by Deuteronomy. The Catholic Church in the West, and Lutherans, followed this enumeration. However, St. Jerome and the Greek Fathers adopted the enumeration as it appears in Exodus, leading the Church in the East to follow it. After the Reformation, Protest-ants other than Lutherans preferred this scheme, which is also the one used by Jews. The Catechism explains this quite clearly (CCC 2066). 

Beyond this less-than-gripping account of what really happened — now, at last, revealed! — you might point out to your friend that whatever version is followed, all the content of the Ten Commandments is included by all Christian churches: be they Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Last I checked, idolatry had a distinctly unwelcome status in Catholic theology, belief and practice. Invite her to look at the Catechism treatment of the first commandment. Not only does it begin (CCC 2083) by spelling out the commandment fully as given in Exodus, graven images and all; it then goes on to dedicate substantial sections to idolatry (CCC 2112-2114) and to the use of images (CCC 2129-2132). 

Catholicism does not tiptoe around apparently awkward passages of the Word of God, silencing them and never facing up to them squarely; nor does it randomly anoint certain passages as being the passages to which everything else must be adjusted. Not all Christian churches, unfortunately, can claim to be as forthright. We are confident in our Faith and confront supposed difficulties head on. The paragraphs devoted to “graven images” offer a fine illustration:

“The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: ‘Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure . . . .’ It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. ‘He is the all,’ but at the same time ‘he is greater than all his works.’ He is ‘the author of beauty’” (CCC 2129).

“Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant and the cherubim’” (CCC 2130).

“Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons — of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new ‘economy’ of images” (CCC 2131).

“The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment, which proscribes idols. Indeed, ‘the honour rendered to an image passes to its prototype,’ and ‘whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.’ The honour paid to sacred images is a ‘respectful veneration,’ not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is” (CCC 2132).

Other Christians would do well to recognize that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (as well as Anglicans and some Protestant denominations) respect the divine plan as fully revealed to us in Christ, while they themselves in certain aspects remain anchored in the Old Testament, sometimes more Jewish than Christian. 

A friend is involved in something called “A Course in Miracles.” She is thinking about leaving the Catholic Church, and seems to have some pretty weird ideas. Can you give me information on this group? Is it anti-Catholic?

It’s not particularly anti-Catholic, but it is non-Christian. Marianne William-son, who popularized the “Course,” speaks of how we each can become a miracle worker by accepting the “God” within us, and by the expression of love. In other words, we’re dealing with a typical New Age phenomenon. If your friend keeps going in that direction, she’ll be leaving not only the Catholic Church: she’ll be leaving Christianity itself behind her.

“A Course in Miracles” represents itself as the result of a direct revelation, that occurred from 1965 to 1972, to an agnostic named Helen Schucman. Though it purports to come from Jesus, this is not the Christian Jesus. It is altogether at odds with Christianity. Don’t take my word for it. Here is what Kenneth Wapnick, Helen Schucman’s close collaborator, biographer, and president of the institute which teaches the course, has to say about it:

The Course and the Bible reflect entirely different and mutually exclusive theologies that can never be integrated into one coherent spirituality . . . This crucial difference can be summarized in the statement that for Christians the Bible is the Word of God . . . while from the perspective of A Course in Miracles, the Bible would be seen as just one among many religious documents that reflect the consciousness of the time and culture in which they were written. Based upon the important distinction the Course draws between form and content, the Bible would be understood as merely the form in which a people expressed its view of the world and of God, no different therefore from the works of the great Western poets such as Homer, the Greek tragedians, Dante, Shakespeare and Goethe, among countless other poets and artists. A Course in Miracles . . . directly refutes the very basis of the Christian faith, leaving nothing on which Christians can base their beliefs . . . In summary, therefore, we can conclude that there is no way one can reconcile the God or theology of the Bible with the theology found in A Course in Miracles. Moreover, the figure of Jesus in the Bible is totally incompatible with the Jesus who authored A Course in Miracles.” (Kenneth Wapnick & W. Norris Clarke, A Course in Miracles and Christianity: A Dialogue; Roscoe, NY: Foundation for a Course in Miracles, 1995).

Dr. Wapnick deserves credit for honestly acknowledging the profound differences, and not attempting to lure Christians by falsely claiming a Christian pedigree. One wishes all sects were as honest.

Christians believe God’s revelation was completed in Christ. Therefore, in essence, any religious system that claims to add to, correct, replace or compete with Christian revelation is non-Christian by definition. “God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him” (CCC 73).

My son is starting high school this year and is required to read three books over the summer. One of these books is Joshua, by Fr. Joseph F. Girzone. What my son has been telling me about it is very disconcerting. Can you give me reasons why a Catholic high school would require this book to be read?

Hmm, well, no, at least not any good reasons. The book’s popularity is certainly not based on its literary merits. Even some of Fr. Girzone’s fans acknowledge as much. I attempted to read a few pages, and was distinctly underwhelmed. Even if I loved the axe the author is engaged in grinding, I doubt I could bear more than a chapter. Maybe in Lent. At any rate, it wouldn’t be necessary to read more. Judging by the comments of other readers, in the space of three pages I got pretty much the whole book in capsule form. Whatever its religious merits or demerits, I find it hard to understand why it might be required reading at any school, Catholic or otherwise.

As to the value of the content for a Catholic education, the comments of readers who call this book one of the best they have ever read are revealing. Here’s a sampling (the nice folks at amazon.com invite people who have read Joshua to post comments): “As a recovered Catholic (converted to the Presbyterian Church) I read this book with awe. Every facet of the Catholic Church that I found repellent is vocalized here.” “It demonstrates how Jesus wanted everyone to love and accept each other, not argue over denominations.” “It shows us how love, understanding and forgiveness are all one needs in life.” “It does not wreak havoc on a conscience by unsettling the mind with messiah-nic [sic] declarations.” “I couldn’t understand why God wanted everyone to be constantly thinking about rules and not living life to the fullest instead. Once I read this book I realized that I am allowed to figure out what I believe in, and that I can question my faith.” “A man with a simple life, perfect, loving, and ready to serve God’s people. Get to know the emotional side of how Jesus felt when he was on earth . . . a great way of showing what is wrong with the churches and Christians today.” There’s lots more but, by now, I would think you get the drift.

Clearly, the book is very popular with those who are fond of a nice warm Jesus who doesn’t say any of those uncomfortable things He tends to say in the Gospels. Actually, the “Jesus” of Joshua does say some nasty things but, since they are aimed unerringly at the “institutional Church,” they serve to bolster that inner glow of personal rightness — coupled with indignation directed at “organized religion” — that so fortifies certain kinds of people today, who call themselves spiritual. Joshua is a Jesus-figure. He is meant to represent what Jesus would say and do, if He were living historically among us today. By some amazing coincidence, Joshua disagrees with Catholic teaching and practice in all the areas the book’s readers happen to have a problem with: male-only priesthood, priestly celibacy, Communion reserved to Catholics only. This Joshua is such a ‘70s and ‘80s kind of guy. I even have a wild hunch the book’s author thinks just like Joshua-Jesus, also. Remarkable, isn’t it? Made in his image, I guess. Don’t ask me “Who in whose image?” Any decent writer has to leave something up to the imagination of the reader.

Let’s give the book its due, however. Its very popularity reveals how many people there are around us who are saddled with the impression that the Catholic Church, and other Christian churches, are interested only in rules, caring not at all for the person of Christ. Yes, at times there is a lot of self-deception involved, but we have to bear more convincing witness of Christ to all men and women. All need to experience the fact that the Church — the body of believers, that is — is the place where Jesus lives. If we all acted like Him, a lot fewer people would feel this way. 

Neither Catholics, nor any other Christians, are compelled to justify either of these Christian practices from Scripture. We are required to justify them from revelation. Sacred Scripture does not say anything about the age of those to be baptized; but Scripture is not all of revelation (if your friend thinks otherwise, she might explain how she knows that). Relying on Scripture alone, we would be simply ignorant of what God’s will is in this. Fortunately, Scripture did not fall down out of the sky; it was given to us by the Apostles and their successors, within a context of Church life and practice. In this manner, they handed down to us (traditio is the Latin term for “handing down,” by the way) elements of God’s plan that are not explicitly contained in Sacred Scripture. Scripture and Tradition are the complementary channels that bring us God’s Word. None of the New Testament writers ever claimed to have written down everything Jesus said and did; in fact, St. John explicitly stated the contrary (cf. John 21:20). 

From the very beginning, the Church believed that it was not only permissible, but necessary, to baptize infants for salvation. Why? Because she believed that everyone — including infants — was affected by original sin and could be saved only by Christ. For her, the words of Christ, “Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5) did not admit of any exception other than martyrdom. “There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized” (CCC 1252; cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16). 

Not only Catholics, but also Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians practice infant baptism. 

Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists also join us in varying degrees of devotion to Mary. However, we do not worship Mary. Some Evangelical Christians appear to be handicapped by a certain poverty of vocabulary, or failure to distinguish different forms of prayer. They use the word worship to describe a whole array of religious practices, without distinction. Catholics use the term worship as a synonym of adore. But Catholics adore only God. We venerate Mary. We pay her the homage of respect and love that she herself forecast when she said, “Behold all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). We pray to her in the old and original sense of the word: to petition, or ask, or beg something of someone. What do we ask her to do? Fill us with her graces, or grant us salvation? No, those things are only God’s to confer. We ask Mary to ask God for these graces for us, since she is certainly closer to Him than any of us are. 

Does this mean we can’t ask for these gifts directly from God? Of course not. But, from early times, Christians perceived that to honor Mary was to honor her Son, and that prayer to her ended up bringing them closer to Him. The leaders of the Christian communities — those to whom the Apostles had entrusted all that Jesus had entrusted to them — not only did not discourage this practice, but praised it and gave example of it themselves. They saw it as a way of responding to Jesus' dying words, “Behold your mother” (John 19:27), understanding as they did that Jesus gave his mother not only to John, but to each one of His followers, represented in the figure of the beloved disciple.

e

Have a question you'd like answered? Send it to Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C., " I Have a Question," 1453 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106; or email it to frwilson@familink.com.