We pass on the following, with grateful acknowledgement, at the request of the author:
12 CLAIMS EVERY CATHOLIC SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER
From: "e-letter" <e-letter@crisismagazine.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 20, 2003, 8:06 am
Dear Friend,
Freedom of speech is a great thing. Unfortunately, it
comes at an unavoidable price: When citizens are free to
say what they want, they'll sometimes use that freedom to
say some pretty silly things.
And that's the case with the 12 claims we're about to
cover. Some of them are made over and over, others are
rare (though worth addressing).
Either way, while the proponents of these errors are free
to promote them, we as Catholics have a duty to respond.
Hopefully, this special CRISIS Magazine e-Report will help
you do just that.
Please feel free to forward this to your friends and
family. These errors are widespread, and it's our
responsibility to correct them.
So, at long last, I present to you 12 claims EVERY
Catholic should be able to answer.
Deal
1. "There's no such thing as absolute truth. What's
true for you may not be true for me."
People use this argument a lot when they disagree with a
statement and have no other way to support their idea.
After all, if nothing is true for everyone, then they can
believe whatever they want and there's nothing you can say
to make them change their minds.
But look at that statement again: "There's no such thing
as absolute truth." Isn't that, in itself, a statement
that's being made absolutely? In other words, it applies
some rule or standard to everyone across the board --
exactly what the relativists say is impossible. They have
undone their own argument simply by stating their case.
The other problem with this statement is that no
relativist actually believes it. If someone said to
you, "There is no absolute truth," and you punched him in
the stomach, he'd probably get upset. But by his own
creed, he'd have to accept that while punching someone in
the stomach may be wrong for him, it might not be wrong
for you.
This is when they'll come back with an amendment to the
original statement by saying, "As long as you're not
hurting others, you're free to do and believe what you
like." But this is an arbitrary distinction (as well as
another absolute statement). Who says I can't hurt others?
What constitutes "hurt"? Where does this rule come from?
If this statement is made based on personal preference, it
means nothing for anyone else. "Do no harm" is in itself
an appeal to something greater -- a sort of universal
dignity for the human person. But again, the question is
where does this dignity come from?
As you can see, the further you delve into these
questions, the closer you come to understanding that our
concepts of right and truth are not arbitrary but are
based in some greater, universal truth outside ourselves --
a truth written in the very nature of our being. We may
not know it in its entirety, but it can't be denied that
this truth exists.
*************************************************
2. "Christianity is no better than any other faith.
All religions lead to God."
If you haven't heard this one a dozen times, you don't get
out much. Sadly enough, the person making this claim is
often himself a Christian (at least, in name).
The problems with this view are pretty straightforward.
Christianity makes a series of claims about God and man:
That Jesus of Nazareth was God Himself, and that he died
and was resurrected -- all so that we might be free from
our sins. Every other religion in the world denies each of
these points. So, if Christianity is correct, then it
speaks a vital truth to the world -- a truth that all
other religions reject.
This alone makes Christianity unique.
But it doesn't end there. Recall Jesus' statement in
John's Gospel: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father, but by me." In Christianity,
we have God's full revelation to humanity. It's true that
all religions contain some measure of truth -- the amount
varying with the religion. Nevertheless, if we earnestly
want to follow and worship God, shouldn't we do it in the
way He prescribed?
If Jesus is indeed God, then only Christianity contains
the fullness of this truth.
*************************************************
3. "The Old and New Testaments contradict one another
in numerous places. If an omnipotent God inspired the
Bible, He would never have allowed these errors."
This is a common claim, one found all over the internet
(especially on atheist and free-thought websites). An
article on the American Atheists website notes that "What
is incredible about the Bible is not its divine
authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory
nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written
by an omniscient God."
Such a statement is generally followed by a list of
Biblical "contradictions." However, claims of
contradictions make a few simple errors. For example,
critics fail to read the various books of the Bible in
line with the genre in which they were written. The Bible
is, after all, a collection of several kinds of
writing...history, theology, poetry, apocalyptic material,
etc. If we try to read these books in the same wooden way
in which we approach a modern newspaper, we're going to be
awfully confused.
And the list of Bible "contradictions" bears this out.
Take, for example, the first item on the American
Atheist's list:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8
Versus...
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5
There! the atheist cries, A clear contradiction. But what
the critic neglects to mention is something every
Christian knows: When Christ instituted the New Covenant,
the ceremonial requirements of the Old Covenant were
fulfilled (and passed away). And so it makes perfect sense
that Old Testament ceremonial rules would no longer stand
for the people of the New Covenant.
If the critic had understood this simple tenet of
Christianity, he wouldn't have fallen into so basic an
error.
The next item on the American Atheist list is similarly
flawed:
"...the earth abideth for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:4
Versus...
"...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
So, the Old Testament claims that the earth will last
forever, while the New says it will eventually be
destroyed. How do we harmonize these? Actually, it's
pretty easy, and it again comes from understanding the
genre in which these two books were written.
Ecclesiastes, for example, contrasts secular and religious
worldviews -- and most of it is written from a secular
viewpoint. That's why we find lines like, "Bread is made
for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers
everything." (Ecclesiastes 10:19)
However, at the end of the book, the writer throws us a
twist, dispensing with all the "wisdom" he'd offered and
telling us to "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for
this is the whole duty of man." (12:13)
If a reader stops before the end, he'll be as confused as
the critic at American Atheists. However, since the
viewpoint that gave birth to the notion of an eternal
earth is rejected in the last lines of the book, there's
obviously no contradiction with what was later revealed in
the New Testament. (And this is just one way to answer
this alleged discrepancy.)
The other "contradictions" between the Old and New
Testaments can be answered similarly. Almost to an item,
the critics who use them confuse context, ignore genre,
and refuse to allow room for reasonable interpretation.
No thinking Christian should be disturbed by these lists.
*************************************************
3. "The Old and New Testaments contradict one another
in numerous places. If an omnipotent God inspired the
Bible, He would never have allowed these errors."
This is a common claim, one found all over the internet
(especially on atheist and free-thought websites). An
article on the American Atheists website notes that "What
is incredible about the Bible is not its divine
authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory
nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written
by an omniscient God."
Such a statement is generally followed by a list of
Biblical "contradictions." However, claims of
contradictions make a few simple errors. For example,
critics fail to read the various books of the Bible in
line with the genre in which they were written. The Bible
is, after all, a collection of several kinds of
writing...history, theology, poetry, apocalyptic material,
etc. If we try to read these books in the same wooden way
in which we approach a modern newspaper, we're going to be
awfully confused.
And the list of Bible "contradictions" bears this out.
Take, for example, the first item on the American
Atheist's list:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Exodus 20:8
Versus...
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully
persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5
There! the atheist cries, A clear contradiction. But what
the critic neglects to mention is something every
Christian knows: When Christ instituted the New Covenant,
the ceremonial requirements of the Old Covenant were
fulfilled (and passed away). And so it makes perfect sense
that Old Testament ceremonial rules would no longer stand
for the people of the New Covenant.
If the critic had understood this simple tenet of
Christianity, he wouldn't have fallen into so basic an
error.
The next item on the American Atheist list is similarly
flawed:
"...the earth abideth for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:4
Versus...
"...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
So, the Old Testament claims that the earth will last
forever, while the New says it will eventually be
destroyed. How do we harmonize these? Actually, it's
pretty easy, and it again comes from understanding the
genre in which these two books were written.
Ecclesiastes, for example, contrasts secular and religious
worldviews -- and most of it is written from a secular
viewpoint. That's why we find lines like, "Bread is made
for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers
everything." (Ecclesiastes 10:19)
However, at the end of the book, the writer throws us a
twist, dispensing with all the "wisdom" he'd offered and
telling us to "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for
this is the whole duty of man." (12:13)
If a reader stops before the end, he'll be as confused as
the critic at American Atheists. However, since the
viewpoint that gave birth to the notion of an eternal
earth is rejected in the last lines of the book, there's
obviously no contradiction with what was later revealed in
the New Testament. (And this is just one way to answer
this alleged discrepancy.)
The other "contradictions" between the Old and New
Testaments can be answered similarly. Almost to an item,
the critics who use them confuse context, ignore genre,
and refuse to allow room for reasonable interpretation.
No thinking Christian should be disturbed by these lists.
*************************************************
4. "I don't need to go to Church. As long as I'm a
good person, that's all that really matters."
This argument is used often, and is pretty disingenuous.
When someone says he's a "good person," what he really
means is that he's "not a bad person" -- bad people being
those who murder, rape, and steal. Most people don't have
to extend a lot of effort to avoid these sins, and that's
the idea: We want to do the least amount of work necessary
just to get us by. Not very Christ-like, is it?
But that mentality aside, there's a much more important
reason why Catholics go to Church other than just as an
exercise in going the extra mile. Mass is the cornerstone
of our faith life because of what lies at its heart: the
Eucharist. It's the source of all life for Catholics, who
believe that bread and wine become the real body and blood
of Christ. It's not just a symbol of God, but God made
physically present to us in a way we don't experience
through prayer alone.
Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have
no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day"
(John 6:53-54). We're honoring Jesus' command and trusting
in that promise every time we go to Mass.
What's more, the Eucharist -- along with all the other
Sacraments -- is only available to those in the Church. As
members of the Church, Christ's visible body here on
earth, our lives are intimately tied up with the lives of
others in that Church. Our personal relationship with God
is vital, but we also have a responsibility to live as
faithful members of Christ's body. Just being a "good
person" isn't enough.
*************************************************
5. "You don't need to confess your sins to a priest.
You can go straight to God."
As a former Baptist minister, I can understand the
Protestant objection to confession (they have a different
understanding of priesthood). But for a Catholic to say
something like this...it's disappointing. I suspect that,
human nature being what it is, people just don't like
telling other people their sins, and so they come up with
justifications for not doing so.
The Sacrament of Confession has been with us from the
beginning, coming from the words of Christ Himself:
"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the
Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had
said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive
the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are
forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are
retained.'" (John 20:21-23)
Notice that Jesus gives His apostles the power to forgive
sins. Of course, they wouldn't know which sins to forgive
if they weren't TOLD what sins were involved.
The practice of confession is also evident in the Letter
Of James:
"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the
church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil
in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save
the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he
has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess
your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that
you may be healed." (James 5:14-16)
It's interesting that nowhere does James (or Jesus) tell
us to confess our sins to God alone. Rather, they seem to
think that forgiveness comes through some means of public
confession.
And it's not difficult to understand why. You see, when we
sin, we rupture our relationship not just with God, but
with His Body, the Church (since all Catholics are
interconnected as children of a common Father). So when we
apologize, we need to do so to all parties involved -- God
AND the Church.
Think of it this way. Imagine you walk into a store and
steal some of their merchandise. Later, you feel remorse
and regret the sinful act. Now, you can pray to God to
forgive you for breaking His commandment. But there's
still another party involved; you'll need to return the
merchandise and make restitution for your action.
It's the same way with the Church. In the confessional,
the priest represents God AND the Church, since we've
sinned against both. And when he pronounces the words of
absolution, our forgiveness is complete.
*************************************************
6. "If the Church truly followed Jesus, they'd sell
their lavish art, property, and architecture, and
give the money to the poor."
When some people think of Vatican City, what they
immediately picture is something like a wealthy kingdom,
complete with palatial living accommodations for the pope
and chests of gold tucked away in every corner, not to
mention the fabulous collection of priceless art and
artifacts. Looking at it that way, it's easy to see how
some people would become indignant at what they think is
an ostentatious and wasteful show of wealth.
But the truth is something quite different. While the main
buildings are called the "Vatican Palace," it wasn't built
to be the lavish living quarters of the pope. In fact, the
residential part of the Vatican is relatively small. The
greater portion of the Vatican is given over to purposes
of art and science, administration of the Church's
official business, and management of the Palace in
general. Quite a number of Church and administrative
officials live in the Vatican with the pope, making it
more like the Church's main headquarters.
As for the impressive art collection, truly one of the
finest in the world, the Vatican views it as "an
irreplaceable treasure," but not in monetary terms. The
pope doesn't "own" these works of art and couldn't sell
them if he wanted to; they're merely in the care of the
Holy See. The art doesn't even provide the Church with
wealth; actually, it's just the opposite. The Holy See
invests quite a bit of its resources into the upkeep of
the collection.
The truth of the matter is that the See has a fairly tight
financial budget. So why keep the art? It goes back to a
belief in the Church's mission (one of many) as a
civilizing force in the world. Just like the medieval
monks who carefully transcribed ancient texts so they
would be available to future generations -- texts that
otherwise would have been lost forever -- the Church
continues to care for the arts so they will not be
forgotten over time. In today's culture of death where the
term "civilization" can only be used loosely, the Church's
civilizing mission is as important today as it ever was.
*************************************************
7. "Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we
should all keep our minds open to new ideas."
You might hear this argument a lot today, especially in
the wake of the abuse scandal in the Church. Everyone
wants to find a solution to the problem, and in doing so
some people are advocating ideas that are outside the pale
of our Catholic faith (i.e., women priests, being open to
homosexuality, etc). A lot of people blame the Church for
being too rigid in its beliefs and not wanting to try
anything new.
The truth is, a lot of the ideas for reform that are
floating around today aren't new. They've been around for
a while, and the Church has already considered them. In
fact, the Church has spent its entire life carefully
examining ideas and determining which ones are in line
with God's law and which aren't. It has discarded heresy
after heresy while carefully building up the tenets of the
Faith. It should come as no surprise that there are
thousands of other Christian churches in existence today --
all of them had "new ideas" at one point that the Church
had decided were outside the deposit of faith.
The Church has an important responsibility in protecting
the integrity of our Faith. It never rejects ideas out of
hand, as some dissenters would claim, but has two thousand
years of prayer and study behind the beliefs it holds to
be true.
This doesn't mean that we can never disagree on anything.
There's always room to discuss how best to deepen our
understanding of the truth -- for example, how we can
improve our seminaries or clergy/lay interactions -- all
within the guidelines of our Faith.
*************************************************
8. "Properly interpreted, the Bible does not condemn
homosexuality. Rather, it weighs against promiscuity --
whether homosexual or heterosexual. Therefore, we have
no reason to oppose loving homosexual relationships."
As homosexual activity gains greater acceptance in our
culture, there'll be more pressure among Christians to
explain away the Bible's clear prohibition against it.
It's now the standard liberal party line to claim that the
Bible -- when understood correctly -- doesn't disallow
homosexual activity.
But this claim flies in the face of clear passages in both
the Old and New Testaments. The first, of course, is the
famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you recall, two
angels were sent by God to Sodom to visit Lot:
"But before [the angels] lay down, the men of the city,
the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to
the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to
Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring
them out to us, that we may know them.' Lot went out of
the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, 'I
beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I
have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring
them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do
nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter
of my roof.' But they said, 'Stand back!' And they
said, 'This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the
judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.'
Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near
to break the door. But the men put forth their hands and
brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door."
(Genesis 19:4-10)
The message of this passage is pretty clear. The men of
Sodom were homosexuals who wanted to have relations with
the men inside the house. Lot offered them his daughters,
but they weren't interested. Shortly thereafter, Sodom was
destroyed by God in payment for the sins of its people --
namely, their homosexual acts. This fact is confirmed in
the New Testament:
"Just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities,
which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural
lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of
eternal fire." (Jude 7)
But these certainly aren't the only passages in the Bible
that condemn gay activity. The Old Testament contains
another unambiguous condemnation: "You shall not lie with
a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus
18:22).
And these statements aren't reserved to the Old Testament
alone.
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for
unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations
with women and were consumed with passion for one another,
men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in
their own persons the due penalty for their error."
(Romans 1:26-27)
It's awfully hard for a liberal Christian to explain this
away. There's simply no mention here merely of gay
promiscuity or rape; rather, Paul is weighing against ANY
homosexual relations (which he describes
as "unnatural," "shameless" and "dishonorable").
Liberal Christians are in a bind. How, after all, does one
harmonize homosexuality with the Bible? Their solution, it
appears, is to strip the Bible of its moral power, and run
in rhetorical circles trying to escape its clear message.
*************************************************
9. "Catholics should follow their conscience in all
things...whether it's abortion, birth control, or
women's ordination."
It's true -- the Catechism says quite plainly, "Man has
the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as
personally to make moral decisions. 'He must not be forced
to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be
prevented from acting according to his conscience,
especially in religious matters'" (1782). This teaching is
at the heart of what it means to have free will.
But that doesn't mean that our conscience is free from all
responsibility or can be ignorant of God's law. This is
what the Catechism refers to as having a "well-formed
conscience."
The Catechism assigns great responsibility to a person's
conscience: "Moral conscience, present at the heart of the
person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good
and to avoid evil.... It bears witness to the authority of
truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human
person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he
listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God
speaking" (1777).
In other words, our conscience isn't just "what we feel is
right" - it's what we judge to be right based on what we
know of the teachings of God and the Church. And in order
to make that judgment, we have a responsibility to study
and pray over these teachings very carefully. The
Catechism has a section dedicated entirely to the careful
formation of our conscience -- that's how important it is
in making right decisions.
And in the end, whether right or wrong, we're still held
accountable for our actions: "Conscience enables one to
assume responsibility for the acts performed" (1781). When
properly formed, it helps us to see when we've done wrong
and require forgiveness of our sins.
By seeking a fully-formed conscience, we actually
experience great freedom, because we're drawing closer to
God's infinite Truth. It's not a burden or something that
keeps us from doing what we want; it's a guide to help us
do what is right. "The education of the conscience
guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart" (1784).
*************************************************
10. "Natural Family Planning is just the Catholic
version of birth control."
Natural Family Planning (NFP) has enemies on all sides.
Some believe that it's an unrealistic alternative to birth
control (which they don't think is sinful anyway) while
others think that it's just as bad as birth control. NFP
has had to walk a fine line between both extremes.
First of all, the main problem with birth control is that
it works against the nature of our bodies -- and nature in
general. It aims to sever the act (sex) from its
consequence (pregnancy), basically reducing the sacredness
of sex to the mere pursuit of pleasure.
NFP, when used for the right reason, is more of a tool
used for discerning whether a couple has the means
(whether financially, physically, or emotionally) to
accept a child into their lives. It involves understanding
your own body, taking careful stock of your situation in
life, discussing the issue with your spouse, and, above
all, prayer. Rather than cutting yourself off from the
full reality of sex, you are entering into it with a
better understanding of all aspects involved.
People who favor birth control point to those people who
can't afford more children, or whose health might be at
risk from further pregnancies. But these are perfectly
legitimate reasons to use NFP -- situations where it would
be perfectly effective -- and the Church allows its use.
Other people think that taking any sort of control over
the size of your family is like playing God, rather than
letting Him provide for us as He sees fit. It's true that
we must trust God and always accept the lives He sends us,
but we don't need to be completely hands-off in that
regard.
For example, rather than throwing money around and saying
that "God will provide," families carefully budget their
finances and try not to overextend their means. NFP is
like that budget, helping us prayerfully consider our
situation in life and act accordingly. It's part of our
nature as humans to understand ourselves and use our
intellect and free will, rather than passively expecting
God to take care of everything. We're called to be good
stewards of the gifts we're given; we must be careful
never to treat those gifts carelessly.
*************************************************
11. "Someone can be pro-choice and Catholic at the
same time."
While this may be one of the most common myths Catholics
hold regarding their faith, it's also one of the most
easily dispelled. The Catechism minces no words when
talking about abortion: It's listed with homicide under
crimes against the fifth commandment, "Thou shalt not
kill."
The following passages make this clear: "Human life must
be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of
conception" (2270). "Since the first century the Church
has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable"
(2271). "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a
grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty
of excommunication to this crime against human life"
(2272).
It can't be stated more plainly than that. Some people
might argue, however, that being "pro-choice" doesn't mean
being in favor of abortion; lots of people think abortion
is wrong but don't want to force that opinion on others.
There's that "what's true for you might not be true for
me" argument again. The Church has an answer to that,
too: "'The inalienable rights of the person must be
recognized and respected by civil society and the
political authority. These human rights depend neither on
single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a
concession made by society and the state; they belong to
human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of
the creative act from which the person took his origin'"
(2273).
The sanctity of life is a universal truth that can never
be ignored. Advising someone to get an abortion, or even
voting for a politician who would advance the cause of
abortion, is a grave sin, because it leads others to
mortal sin -- what the Catechism calls giving scandal
(2284).
The Church stands forcefully and clearly against abortion,
and we as Catholics must take our stand as well.
*************************************************
12. "People's memories of their past lives prove that
reincarnation is true...and that the Christian view of Heaven and
Hell is not."
As society becomes increasingly fascinated with the
paranormal, we can expect to see claims of "past life
memories" increase. Indeed, there are now organizations
who will help take you through your previous lives using
hypnosis.
While this may be convincing to some, it certainly isn't
to anyone familiar with the mechanics of hypnosis. Almost
since the beginning, researchers have noted that patients
in deep hypnosis frequently weave elaborate stories and
memories...which later turn out to be utterly untrue.
Reputable therapists are well aware of this phenomenon,
and weigh carefully what the patient says under hypnosis.
Sadly, though, this isn't the case with those interested
in finding "proof" for reincarnation. Perhaps the greatest
example of this carelessness is the famous Bridey Murphy
case. If you're not familiar with it, here's a quick
outline: In 1952, a Colorado housewife named Virginia
Tighe was put under hypnosis. She began speaking in an
Irish brogue and claimed to once have been a woman named
Bridey Murphy who had lived in Cork, Ireland.
Her story was turned into a bestselling book, "The Search
For Bridey Murphy," and received much popular attention.
Journalists combed Ireland, looking for any person or
detail that might confirm the truth of this past-life
regression. While nothing ever turned up, the case of
Bridey Murphy continues to be used to buttress claims of
reincarnation.
That's a shame, since Virginia Tighe was exposed as a
fraud decades ago. Consider: Virginia's childhood friends
recalled her active imagination, and ability to concoct
complex stories (often centered around the imitation
brogue she had perfected). Not only that, but she had a
great fondness for Ireland, due in part to a friendship
with an Irish woman whose maiden name was -- you guessed
it -- Bridie.
What's more, Virginia filled her hypnosis narratives with
numerous elements from her own life (without revealing the
parallels to the hypnotist). For example, Bridey described
an "uncle Plazz," which eager researchers took to be a
corruption of the Gaelic, "uncle Blaise." Their enthusiasm
ran out though when it was discovered that Virginia had a
childhood friend she called Uncle Plazz.
When a hypnotized Virginia began dancing an Irish jig,
researchers were astounded. How, after all, would a
Colorado housewife have learned the jig? The mystery was
solved, when it was revealed that Virginia learned the
dance as a child.
As the Bridey Murphy case shows, the claims of past-life
regression are always more impressive than the reality. To
this day, not a single verifiable example exists of a
person being regressed to a former life. Certainly, many
tales have been told under the control of a hypnotist, but
nevertheless, evidence for reincarnation (like that for
the Tooth Fairy) continues to elude us.
**** YOU'LL KNOW THE INSIDE STORY BEFORE ANYONE ELSE! ****
With the FREE CRISIS Magazine e-Letter, you'll get inside
stories, the latest news, and immediate responses to anti-
Catholic attacks.
To subscribe to the FREE CRISIS Magazine e-Letter, send an
e-mail to
e-letter@crisismagazine.com and write "SUBSCRIBE" in the
subject line.
***********************************************************
***
To learn more about CRISIS Magazine, visit
***********************************************************
***
If you no longer wish to receive the CRISIS e-Letter,
please send an e-mail to mail@crisismagazine.com and
write "CANCEL" in the subject line.
***********************************************************
***
To change your e-mail address, please send an e-mail to
mail@crisismagazine.com with "ADDRESS CHANGE" in the
subject line. Please make sure to tell us your old and new
e-mail addresses, so we can make the change.
***********************************************************
***
Please forward this letter to anyone you think might
benefit from it.
Comments
Post a Comment