Throughout history, everyone has used some standard of measurement. Whether it was spiritual, mathematical, or architectural, whatever. We use rulers and measuring tapes to determine lengths of things. We use set standards of measurement, whether inches or centimeters. No one would hire a carpenter who said he didn't need to measure the wood he was working with to build. We have codes of conduct, whether the 10 Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi, etc. We have laws that guide our lives. No one can say that they don't need laws, that they could determine what's right or wrong on their own. If we accepted that, there'd be anarchy. After all, who hasn't felt that the 25 mph road should be 35? Or the 75 should be 55? If it were left up to us, the death rate for auto accidents would sky rocket. If it were up to us, consider, not only who we may put in prison, but especially, who'd we let out? Instead of freedom, living in our homes, we'd stay locked in our own personal fortress.
History is full of things where people thought they knew what was right or what was wrong. To the ancient Romans, it was right to persecute and execute Christians. Why? Because Christians posed a threat to the Empire. (Or so they thought) So to defend themselves it was perfectly ok to execute them, even as a form of entertainment. In the US, we saw how many saw blacks as not quite human, but a 'species' somewhere between men and apes. IN fact, even some of the most 'kind' of southern slave holders felt they were doing them a good by 'civilizing' them while they worked their plantations. And of course, many Americans, especially western settlers, saw the American Indians as just uncivilized savages. ("The only good Indian is a dead Indian" [Gen. Philip Sheridan]). And of course, thousands of Germans felt they were merely protecting their civilization by sending Jews (and other 'undesirables') to 'work camps' to be rehabilitated. (And some Germans thought they were doing a good by just exterminating them).
So, we can see from history how well we have 'determined' what is right and wrong on our own.
More often than not, this 'saying' is repeated by those wishing to justify something, establishing their 'authority' over the Church. Ask an avowed homosexual if he (she) is sinning by engaging in homosexual sex and of course the answer would be that they aren't. But if you ask them if a pedophile is sinning by engaging in sex with a child, the answer would be yes. But can't the pedophile determine what is right or wrong as well? Isn't he imposing 'his' morality on the pedophile?
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, 'Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?' And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.' ' But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate" (Genesis 3:1-6).
Now Eve knew God's command, His 'standard' of morality. But the serpent told her what she wanted to hear. "But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'" Eve knew God's command but she desired what the serpent offered. "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate;" She ultimately convinced herself that this was not wrong, but good, even though God had commanded otherwise. But not content to merely go against God's command alone, she get's Adam to do so as well.
We hear much the same thing today. From phrases as "Searching for the god/dess within.", and other similar sayings. But is this what being a Christian is about? Is this what being a Catholic is about? Let's look to Christ for an example. "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, * being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2: 5-8).
God, the Creator of the universe, took the form of man. And not just any man, but a helpless baby, born in poverty. But it doesn't end there. "Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing Him to be in the company they went a day's journey, and they sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; and when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. After three days they found Him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard Him were amazed at his understanding and His answers. And when they saw Him they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, 'Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.' And He said to them, 'How is it that you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be in My Father's house?' And they did not understand the saying which He spoke to them. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and His mother kept all these things in her heart" (Luke 2:41-51).
He came with them to Nazareth and was obedient to them. God, the Creator of the universe was obedient to His human parents. Now He would have had every right to say, "No Mary, Joseph, you don't understand. Go home while I stay here and do My Fathers work." But even the Son of God had to obey the commands of God. "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you" (Exodus 20:12). "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented Him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' But Jesus answered him, 'Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized," (Matthew 3:13-16).
Jesus, the Son of God, baptised? " it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Again, we see Christ humbling Himself and doing what God commanded, not what He wanted to do. "So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound Him. First they led Him to Annas; for He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year" (John 18: 12-13). Is there any doubt that Christ could have avoided this? That with a mere thought, He could have walked away untouched? Do you recall when some who heard Him wanted to stone Him? Yet He just walked through them! "He (Pilate) entered the praetorium again and said to Jesus, 'Where are you from?' But Jesus gave no answer. Pilate therefore said to Him, 'You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?' Jesus answered him, 'You would have no power over Me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin'" (John 19:9-11).
Again, Christ submitted to God's command, letting Himself be put under the power of mere men. Why? Because it was God's will.
So, even Christ humbled Himself, and did what God commanded. And what of His followers? His faithful? "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there will be no end.' And Mary said to the angel, '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 1:30-35).
Even by today's standards, this is pure absurdity. But in her time, it was more, it was death to be an unwed mother. But as a true faithful daughter of the Father, Mary humbled herself and said yes. "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" (Luke 1: 38). Wouldn't a 'modern' answer have been "I can think for myself and I won't. You ask too much of me."
"And at the end of eight days, when He was circumcised, He was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord' and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord," (Luke 2: 21-24).
Mary and Joseph, knowing who He was, still did everything according to the law of the Lord. How easy it would have been to rationalize that they didn't need to "present Him to the Lord" since He WAS the Lord!!!
And again, going back to John the Baptist, he did as God commanded Him, even though, logically, he concluded that, "I need to be baptized by you," (cf. Matthew 3:14) " And when He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching, and said, 'By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?' (Matthew 21:23).
Isn't this the same question we hear of the Church today?
"Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him" (Matthew 21:31-32). The tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners heard and believed John, and Christ, and turned from their sins. The tax collectors asked only what they were required to ask for, prostitutes and other sinners repented and turned from their sins.
Christ never asked the woman caught in adultery if she 'thought' she had sinned. He told her to go and sin no more. Sinners who asked for forgiveness were forgiven. Though I'm sure many others asked who gave Him the authority to call it a sin, or even forgive it. (If it isn't a sin, how can it be forgiven?)
If we rely on ourselves to determine what is right and wrong, with no standard, no guidance, then we will only be advocating anarchy and chaos. After all, how can we then say one person is wrong if they are their own arbitrator of what is right or wrong? We make ourselves God by setting ourselves above His Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth (ref. 1 Timothy 3:15).
By whose authority does the Church teach right from wrong? "And Jesus came and said to them, (the 11 Apostles) 'All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age'" (Matthew 28: 18-20).
"He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me" (Luke 10:16).
So, a Christian, a Catholic, submits humbly to the Church as they would to God since it teaches with His authority. They don't first consider what they want to do, but rather what God wants them to do. "Then Jesus told His disciples, 'If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?'" (Matthew 16: 24-26).
But when we hear someone say, "People don't need some church telling them what's right or what's wrong. I can think for myself, I can tell what's right or what's wrong." Aren't they saying that he need not deny himself? That Christ (and the Church) should come after him? Submit to his will?
Pax Christi, Pat
Bishop Belo, who is revered as the territory's foremost spiritual leader, arrived in Dili and was met by priests and nuns and a strong security force. "I hope ... the international community can work hard to establish lasting peace in this land," he told reporters. "My priority is to be here with the people, to say Mass and to pray with them, to visit them. This is the only priority I can have."
The bishop, a 1996 Nobel Peace Prize co-winner, left East Timor in early September after militias attacked his residence, burning it to the ground, and forcing hundreds of refugees sheltering there to flee. Bishop Belo said he hoped his return encouraged the tens of thousands of refugees still hiding in the forests to return and start rebuilding their lives.
"Why do they continue to live in the forest? This is not our life," Belo said before leaving Darwin, Australia, for Dili. "As human beings we must return to our villages, to our towns, to begin to rebuild."
Pope John Paul II is scheduled to travel to Iraq in December, to visit Ur of the Chaldeans, the ancient home of the patriarch Abraham. The visit, which the Holy Father describes as a pilgrimage, would mark one step in the Pontiff's plan to visit "the places that are tied to the history of salvation" during the next year.
However, although the Pope has stressed that his trip would be a purely religious pilgrimage, he cannot reach the site of Ur-- now located at the city of Tal al Muqayyar-- without first traveling to Baghdad. And in the Iraqi capital city, some powerful forces are evidently striving to make the papal visit a political event.
On September 29, the Iraqi news agency INA-- which is tightly controlled by the regime of Saddam Hussein-- published a statement by four leading intellectuals, who sharply criticized Pope John Paul for wishing to make a strictly religious pilgrimage, and insisted that while in Iraq he must issue a statement condemning "American-Zionist aggression" against that country.
Since that public statement appeared to reflect the thinking of some Iraqi government leaders, the Vatican decided to suspend preparations for the papal visit, pending a clarification from Baghdad. Vatican sources indicated that the clarification could come in the form of a formal written invitation to the Pontiff; to date, the Iraqi government has only extended an oral invitation.
Political analysts believe that the Iraqi regime is divided about the papal visit. Some figures close to Saddam Hussein believe that the Pope's presence would have a positive impact, since it would call attention to the suffering borne by the Iraqi people as the result of an international embargo. Others, however, point out that Pope John Paul could direct some blunt criticism against the country's totalitarian government.
Vatican sources, speaking privately, indicate that the Pope still intends to make his pilgrimage to Iraq. Although the United States has protested against the Pontiff's plans, no real obstacle has been placed in the way of a visit, and the Holy See expects to resolve the latest political difficulties with the Iraqi regime. However, if those problems are not resolved quickly, the papal visit-- currently scheduled for December 2- 5-- might be moved back to a later date.
God "does not remain far off, but intervenes in history," the Pope pointed out, in the 920th weekly catechetical talk of his pontificate.
At the close of his audience, the Holy Father voiced his satisfaction with the news that the Organization of African States had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. He asked the 18,000 pilgrims who had gathered in St. Peter's Square to pray for peace in Africa and "in all the countries that are still suffering because of war."
The poll was conducted in a novel way, without the standard multiple-choice answers. Each of the 506 adults interviewed by phone were offered open-ended questions to allow for greater spontaneity and a larger possibility of answers.
While ABC has not given the exact figures of the responses, they did reveal that John Paul II was followed closely by Billy Graham and Mother Teresa.
William Shakespeare was the only figure to appear among the most popular in more than one category. In fact, he placed first by a large margin in Literature, but came in a meager fourth in Entertainment: behind Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. ZE99100621