Byline: Carl E. Olson

4 min read

Evil

Why Does God Allow Evil?

Carl E. Olson

August 21, 2022 6:58 am August 21, 2022

4 min read

7357 views

Comments Off

4 min read

In October 2015, a young man opened fire on faculty and students at Umpqua Community College, just an hour south of my home in western Oregon. After shooting and killing…

In October 2015, a young man opened fire on faculty and students at Umpqua Community College, just an hour south of my home in western Oregon.

After shooting and killing nine people and injuring several more, the assailant took his own life. How can or should we think about such acts of evil? I use the word “think” deliberately, because while the emotions of anger and anguish are natural and understandable, it is not easy to reflect on such horrific acts. Following the shootings, I had a discussion with some Catholics who expressed how difficult it was to talk to young people about what had happened in Roseburg, Ore. “They want to know why a good God would allow this to happen,” said one of them. “They are upset that God didn’t stop it from happening.” We can begin by acknowledging, as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the difficulty of the question, “Why does evil exist?”, and agreeing that “no quick answer will suffice” (No. 309).

But we must also insist that the mystery of evil cannot ever be explained through merely mechanistic analysis or by invoking medicinal formulas. In fact, such supposedly “scientific” approaches provide little insight and even less hope. Even in the case of mental illness — a sometimes hazy and unsatisfying term — there is the reality of the Fall and the damage done to one’s heart, mind and soul. There is also the distorted, twisted paths man can choose, if he so desires.

Each of us has a natural desire to be known, acknowledged and loved. This, too, can lead down dark paths, warped into the desire to be feared, powerful and in control of life and death. The latter is key, for anyone who freely takes an innocent life is also spurning God, the author and giver of life. We must ask: “What is free will? Is it a good thing?” Having free will means that we, as rational and moral creatures, can make decisions and act upon them. We instinctively know this is a good thing. But why? Well, if we cannot think or act freely, we are not truly human; we would be lacking in an essential way. Even in a culture increasingly detached from a Christian anthropology people believe personal freedom is a great good. As Christians we believe, “Endowed with a spiritual soul, with intellect and with free will, the human person is from his very conception ordered to God and destined for eternal beatitude” (Catechism, No. 1711).

Related questions follow: “What are good and evil? And how do we know?” Some atheists argue God cannot exist because God would not allow evil things to happen to good people. But why do they assume there are things such as “good” or “evil” when they believe the world and everything in it is the result of a mechanistic accident and humans are simply accidents, without a Creator or a transcendent end? Evil is the privation of a good. “A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together,” states the Catechism. “An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself” (No. 1755). “A thing essentially evil cannot exist,” argued St. Thomas Aquinas. “The foundation of evil is always a good subject.”

We recognize that evil results from man seeking a good through disordered, selfish and unjust means. We have a desire to be accepted, but hurting others because they haven’t accepted us is wrong. The statement by Aquinas might startle us, but only because we fail to comprehend that evil is the warping of the good.

If God forced us to do only good, would He be God? Would we truly be “good”? No, of course not. Since God is love — free and total gift of self — He does not coerce. We really are free to reject both Him and authentic love. Which means we are free to pursue goods in a way that is unjust and unloving. When man rejects God, man also rejects man. That is what we saw in the horrible actions in Roseburg.

The mystery of evil is daunting, but “there is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil” (Catechism, No. 309).

Comments Off

4 min read

Evangelization

How Best To Explain The Faith?

Carl E. Olson

June 12, 2022 7:23 am June 12, 2022

4 min read

4338 views

Comments Off

4 min read

A couple of years ago I was part of a small group talking to an archbishop about evangelization. The archbishop, a very intelligent shepherd, remarked on the challenges facing Catholics…

A couple of years ago I was part of a small group talking to an archbishop about evangelization.

The archbishop, a very intelligent shepherd, remarked on the challenges facing Catholics in a seculiarized, postmodern world. “How are we,” he pondered, “to reach people who do not share a common culture or a common language?” Americans once could assume a common understanding, at least generally, regarding the objective nature of truth and goodness, the reality of a transcendent order, the existence of God, and even the divinity and uniqueness of Jesus Christ. No longer. The public square is now shorn and stripped of such common understanding and language. Most Americans are biblically illiterate, and precious few know or care about theology, philosophy and the permanent things. What is the best way to explain and defend the Faith? This is a question that every Christian should ponder and seek to answer.

Years before becoming Catholic, I was introduced to apologetics through the writings of Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, Ronald Nash, James Sire and similar evangelical or Anglican thinkers. Now, having been a Catholic for nearly 20 years, I continue to read the works of certain evangelical thinkers. One such writer and scholar is Os Guinness, a prolific author who was educated at Oxford and now lives in the United States where he attends an Anglican parish. His first book, “The Dust of Death” (1973), was an outstanding analysis of the counterculture of the 1960s; it dug deeply into the philosophical foundations of belief systems ranging from atheism to existentialism to pantheism.

His new book, “Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion” (InterVarsity), is an exceptional reflection on apologetics and evanelization. “We are all apologists now,” writes Guinness. But, he notes, most “apologetics” today are secular in nature, often taking the form of online discussions and debates and facilitated through relentless social media. On one hand, Christians have an opportunity to witness in ways never dreamed of before; on the other hand, “there are oddities in the age of communication that make it actually harder to communicate well today.” We must, Guinness insists, regain the art of Christian persuasion. An essential problem is that most Christians assume “that people are open to what we have to say, or at least are interested.… Yet most people quite simply are not open, not interested and not needy.” In fact, many people are increasingly hostile toward Christianity and the Church.

What to do? First, Christians must work to employ “prophetic persuasion,” which is marked by both creativity and fidelity to the Gospel. It is informed by examples in Scripture and in the history of the Church. The prophets were remarkable for getting people to see and hear what they didn’t want to see or hear. To accomplish this, they directly raised the questions and issues that made people uncomfortable. However, doing so did not ensure success, at least not in terms that we might accept or understand. Second, we must be “more decisively Christian in our communication.” This is not relying on rote formulas but is “a communication of the gospel that is shaped by our understanding of God’s communication in Christ, just as God’s communication in Christ is shaped by God’s understanding of the condition of our hearts.” Guinness posits that our witness must be shaped by the great truths of salvation history: “creation, the fall, the incarnation, the cross, and the Spirit of God.” In doing so, we recognize the place of reason but also acknowledge “the primacy of the human heart.” This, in fact, is a deeply biblical approach to witness. Finally, Guinness argues that all good thinking involves three questions: “What is being said? Is it true? What of it?” Unfortunately, most people are preoccupied with the third question and ignore the other two. A major reason for this is how technology has shaped our perception of how things work and should be understood. Technique rules. Yet Christian persuasion and witness is not a matter of technique; it is an art rooted in a biblical worldview and aimed at revealing Jesus Christ.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com). He and his family live in Eugene, Oregon.

Comments Off

6 min read

Scripture

The Real Mary Magdalene

Carl E. Olson

March 1, 2022 3:57 am March 1, 2022

6 min read

15778 views

Comments Off

6 min read

Drawing from exotic speculations based on heretical texts that were written long after the Gospels, many have falsely claimed throughout the ages that Mary Magdalene was a “goddess,” was married to Jesus, and was intended by Him to be the leader of the Church. But that is not the real Mary Magdalene depicted in the Gospels and celebrated by the Church.

For a true portrait of this famous but misunderstood woman, let’s start with the biblical accounts.

Seeking the Real Mary Magdalene

The four Gospels contain at least a dozen references to Mary from Magdala, a town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. She is described as a woman who had suffered from demonic possession and from whom Jesus had expelled seven demons (see Mk 16:9; Lk 8:2).

She is also prominently mentioned as one of the women who accompanied Jesus in His ministry (Lk 8:2). She was a witness of the Crucifixion (Mt 27:56; Jn 19:25), of Jesus’ burial (Mt 27:61; Mk 15:47), and of the empty tomb (Mt 28:1-10; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:10). After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to her alone at the tomb (Mk 16:9; Jn 20:1-18).

In the Western tradition, Mary Magdalene eventually became identified with the sinful woman of Luke 7:37-50 as well as Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus (see Lk 10:38-42; Jn 11). However, in the Eastern tradition, the three women were identified separately, with feast days on March 21 (the unnamed sinner), March 18 (Mary of Bethany) and July 22 (Mary Magdalene).

Many feminists and critics claim that the Catholic Church, alarmed by Mary’s supposed position as Jesus’ chief apostle, slandered and “defamed” her by labeling her a prostitute. They say this was due to “the Vatican’s” desire to silence the “truth” about Mary Magdalene, including her marriage to Jesus and her position of authority in the early Church. Such a tale of conspiracy and misogyny is attractive to those questioning the role of women in the Catholic Church and the Church’s teachings about sexual mores. But is it accurate?

The Church, the Pope and the Magdalene

If the early Christians were intent upon destroying the memory of Mary Magdalene, they did a poor job of it. In Christian Scripture and Tradition she is given a prominent role as witness to the Resurrection, a remarkable fact considering that the testimony of women had little value in first-century Jewish society.

Even so, these references aren’t enough for those who are convinced that the Magdalene was deliberately denied her rightful place at the right hand of Jesus as His head apostle. And although she is mentioned more times than some of the apostles, some feminist writers speak of her being “marginalized” by a piece of “propaganda” known as the New Testament, written by “the anti-Magdalene party.”

Feminist critics often portray the early Church Fathers as villains in this matter. The prime suspect in the alleged crime against women is Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604). The Pope once said in a homily: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.”

Why did St. Gregory make this identification?

First, the passage about the “sinful woman” in Luke 7:37-50 immediately precedes the description of “Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out” in Luke 8:2. He apparently harmonized the two descriptions, perhaps because the woman who anointed Jesus (see Lk 7:38) is described as a “sinner,” and Mary Magdalene had been possessed by seven demons — an indication to some that she was that sinner.

A second reason for Pope Gregory’s identification of the two women is the Magdalene’s birthplace. By the sixth century, the biblical city of Magdala had acquired a reputation of depravity and godlessness.

Third, John 11:1-2 identifies the woman who anointed Christ and dried His feet with her hair as Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus. St. Gregory may have assumed that the two accounts of a woman anointing Our Lord referred to the same event and the same woman.

Probably the most important reason, however, that Pope Gregory identified Magdalene with the “sinful woman” is that his preferred way of interpreting the biblical text was to focus on its moral implications. He believed that the seven demons that had once possessed Mary Magdalene, though literal demons, also represented the seven deadly sins.

At the time of this homily, Rome was undergoing famine and the turmoil of war. So the Pope was taking this opportunity to encourage Christians to repent of their sins.

Vicious Slander or Papal Candor?

St. Gregory’s creation of a single Mary out of three different women is arguably not supported by the text. Most Catholic Scripture scholars agree with the Eastern tradition that the three women are separate individuals. The revised 1969 Roman calendar no longer classifies Mary Magdalene as a penitent, indicating that Rome no longer considers her a reformed harlot. Never-theless, even if St. Gregory’s act was factually flawed, it wasn’t outrageous and it certainly wasn’t malicious. As a pastor and a man of holiness, the great Pope held up Mary Magdalene as an exemplar of repentance, humility and devotion. She was a symbol of hope for sinners.

Though his facts may not have been accurate, he was not attempting to destroy Mary Magdalene, but to praise her. In the meantime, we should note that however great the authority of Pope Gregory, his teaching about Mary Magdalene was not infallible, nor was it issued in an encyclical or a papal bull. It was never defined as Catholic dogma nor upheld as sacred doctrine by an ecumenical council.

Contrary to feminist criticisms and the unfounded assertions to the contrary, Mary Magdalene has been openly celebrated by Catholics for many centuries. Described by some Church Fathers as the “apostle to the apostles,” she was a brave disciple of Jesus who stood at His cross; she was also a witness to the resurrected Christ.

Far from being pilloried or slandered, Mary of Magdala is rightly recognized by the Church as a model of faithfulness, devotion and loyalty to the truth of the Gospel of her Master and Lord.

Comments Off

4 min read

Evangelization

Apologetics, Catechesis and Evangelization Today

Carl E. Olson

February 11, 2022 7:00 am February 11, 2022

4 min read

4010 views

Comments Off

4 min read

Have you ever tried to sit on a two-legged stool? Of course not. But a good number of Christians, including some Catholics, often try to employ two-legged stools when it…

Have you ever tried to sit on a two-legged stool? Of course not. But a good number of Christians, including some Catholics, often try to employ two-legged stools when it comes to learning, knowing, sharing and defending the Faith.

I have two stools in mind. The first is described in Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, when it summarizes the vital relationship between tradition, Scripture and the magisterium. Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture, explained the council fathers, form “one sacred deposit of the word of God.” Combined with the Church — “the entire holy people united with their shepherds” — they are united in “holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the Faith.” The magisterium, the “living teaching office of the Church,” serves tradition and Scripture by “teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit.” These three — tradition, Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church — are “so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others … together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls” (see No. 10).

Remove any one (or two!) of the three legs and problems arise. Without the magisterium, people become popes and councils unto themselves; without tradition, people become captives of the present age; without Scripture, people become cut off from the life-giving light of God’s Word. There is no conflict between the three, as each is a gift from God and oriented toward the final end, which is, by God’s grace, eternal communion with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The second leg consists of evangelization, catechesis and apologetics. Evangelization comes in various forms, but preaching is an essential form, as evidenced in the Acts of the Apostles; it has the same Greek root word as “gospel” since evangelization consists in proclaiming the “good news” of Christ. In addition, the preaching of the apostles, “handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thes 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3)” ( Dei Verbum, No. 8).

The Greek word katekhizein means to teach or instruct by word of mouth, and so it is in many ways a continuation and deepening of the original message of the Gospel. An apologia is a defense of a belief, made by speaking. In the early Church, communication was mostly through speaking face to face.

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you,” wrote St. Peter, “yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pt 3:15). The words “defense” and “account” have the same root word — logos, or word; it indicates how closely aligned are the defending and sharing of truth. Evangelization and apologetics, when pursued with charity and humility, are complementary. To evangelize is to offer an invitation. Apologetics helps open the door; it clears away misconceptions, questions and false notions. And every Catholic who has been confirmed is called to proclaim and explain, since the Sacrament of Confirmation “gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1303).

It is commonplace (because it is true) to hear that catechesis, evangelization and apologetics have all suffered in recent decades. One reason is that when one is ignored, or even pushed aside, the other two suffer; the stool falls over. Without catechesis and a resulting depth of faith, Catholics aren’t able or willing to evangelize. Without evangelization, Catholics won’t grow in their mission to share the love of Christ and the joy of the Gospel. Without apologetics, Catholics are often prey to attacks and falsehoods. The three support one another; they never compete with one another. They are always meant for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. As the great apologist Peter Kreeft says: “Apologetics is not a job, it is the courtship of souls.”

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com). He and his family live in Eugene, Ore.

Comments Off

4 min read

The Church

The Light Of The Eastern Churches

Carl E. Olson

June 28, 2021 8:24 am June 28, 2021

4 min read

5922 views

Comments Off

4 min read

In 1995, Pope St. John Paul II issued an apostolic letter titled Orientale Lumen, on the Eastern Churches. He wrote that the “light of the East” — that is, the…

In 1995, Pope St. John Paul II issued an apostolic letter titled Orientale Lumen, on the Eastern Churches.

He wrote that the “light of the East” — that is, the Eastern Catholic Churches — had “inspired my predecessor Pope Leo XIII to write the apostolic letter Orientalium Dignitas, in which he sought to safeguard the significance of the Eastern traditions for the whole Church.” He then stated, “Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it” (No. 1).

Reading that paragraph, I recall a conversation I once had with a devout Catholic lady about the perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament at her parish. “Does your parish have Eucharistic Adoration?” she asked. “No,” I replied, “but that is because Eastern Catholic parishes do not have perpetual adoration.” She was stunned; in fact, I think she was scandalized! I pointed out that perpetual adoration — like the Rosary and the Stations of the Cross — is a Western devotion, and not part of the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) tradition. While the origins of perpetual adoration can be traced back to St. Francis of Assisi in the 1200s, it became widespread after the Reformation and the Council of Trent as a means of promoting piety and addressing the rejection, by Protestant sects, of belief in the Real Presence (see Pages 12-15). But why not in the East? As my pastor has wryly noted, “The East has witnessed plenty of heresies, but never a rejection of the Eucharist.”

There are three basic points to consider in relation to teaching and defending the Catholic faith. First, learning more about the Eastern Churches will increase your knowledge about Catholicism and deepen your love for the Church. St. John Paul II put this in rather striking terms, saying that “conversion is . . . required of the Latin Church, that she may respect and fully appreciate the dignity of Eastern Christians, and accept gratefully the spiritual treasures of which the Eastern Catholic Churches are the bearers, to the benefit of the entire catholic communion” (No. 21).

Second, knowledge of the Eastern Churches highlights unity and diversity that is truly, authentically Catholic. Eastern Catholicism demonstrates that the Catholic Church is not a monolithic and homogenous Western institution, but is an ancient, catholic and worldwide communion of the faithful united by dogma, doctrine and the See of Peter.

Third, these distinctions, and the history behind them, are helpful to the Catholic catechist and apologist. Knowledge of some basic facts about Eastern Catholicism can clear away misconceptions and misrepresentations of Catholicism. For example, the fact that married men are commonly allowed to become priests in the Eastern Churches helps to do away with the notion that the Catholic Church has dogmatically declared that all priests must be celibate; it can help to demonstrate the difference between doctrine accepted by all Catholics — only men can be ordained priests — and disciplines unique to the East and West. The two matters are not equivalent.

Another good example is belief in the Real Presence. In the West, this marvelous truth was eventually described and defined in scholastic language, and often referred to as “transubstantiation.” Some fundamentalists and others will point to transubstantiation, which came out of the medieval era, as the creation and promotion of a sort of “magical” belief regarding the nature of the Eucharist. (All of Christianity, it should be noted, believed in the Real Presence until the Reformation.) Yet Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as well as the ancient Oriental Churches — who split from the Church in the fifth century — all believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, even if they use differing terminologies.

The light of the East is for the whole Church, and it helps illuminate the Faith in ways big and small.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com). He and his family live in Eugene, Ore.

Comments Off

4 min read

Jesus

Defending the Resurrection

Carl E. Olson

April 6, 2021 1:52 pm April 6, 2021

4 min read

6409 views

Comments Off

4 min read

How many accessible works of Catholic apologetics can you name that focus on the resurrection of Christ? Chances are your list is quite short. That’s one of the reasons I…

How many accessible works of Catholic apologetics can you name that focus on the resurrection of Christ?

Chances are your list is quite short. That’s one of the reasons I wrote my recent book “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead? Questions and Answers about the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ” (Ignatius Press–Augustine Institute, 2016). One of the main goals of the book was to provide nontechnical but substantive answers to a wide range of questions about and arguments against the Christian belief that Jesus Christ did, in fact, rise from the grave. Here are a few things I think are noteworthy about this topic.

There are very few recent books by Catholics defending the Resurrection. However, the fine Jesuit theologian Father Gerald O’Collins has written and edited several books on the topic, and I refer to his books many times. One great insight from Father O’Collins is that the Christian belief in the Resurrection is intimately connected to the Christian belief that God is Trinitarian and personal. He notes how often the apostle Paul “takes the Resurrection of Jesus (together with ours) as the specifically Christian way of presenting God.” He also notes that to “be wrong about the Resurrection is to ‘misrepresent’ God essentially, since Paul defines God as the God of resurrection (1 Cor 15:15).” This is a reminder of how the distinctively Christian beliefs in God as Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection are intimately connected.

Many of the best books about the Resurrection in recent years have been written by evangelical or Anglican scholars, such as William Lane Craig, Michael Licona and N.T. Wright, or evangelicals, such as Craig Keener, Craig Evans and Ben Witherington III. Catholics need not, of course, agree with everything written by these authors to appreciate the rigor of their research and argumentation.

The internet is, in many ways, way behind the curve. While you can find plenty of sites run by atheists and skeptics claiming that Jesus didn’t exist or that there is no evidence for the Resurrection, there are few (if any) reputable historians who will deny that Jesus existed, or who will dismiss the many difficult questions posed by the textual and historical data. Bart Ehrman, who is both a prolific New Testament scholar and an agnostic, recently wrote a book, “Did Jesus Exist?”, that takes on “mythicists” — those who deny that Jesus was a real, historical figure. Ehrman compares such skeptics to Holocaust deniers. He notes that few of these mythicists have any training “in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field,” and he claims that no mythicists teach New Testament or early Christianity at “any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.”

The importance of chronology cannot be overstated. Some skeptics tend to talk about the events following the death of Christ as if they happened in a sort of vague vacuum — as if we have no idea when certain things happened. That’s not really the case, even if exact dates aren’t possible. So, for instance, Peter and the other apostles began proclaiming the Resurrection within a few weeks of Jesus’ death. If Jesus had still been dead, why didn’t someone produce the body? And whatever would have inspired the previously frightened and hiding apostles to suddenly be bold and unwavering in their witness?

Details are always important, but we shouldn’t overlook the forest for the trees. Some skeptical scholars fixate — to the point of neurotic obsession — on supposedly conflicting details within the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. But there are three key facts that the early Christians all agreed upon, even in the face of opposition and persecution: the tomb that held Jesus was empty; Jesus appeared at various times to the apostles and other disciples; and the Church grew based primarily on its declaration that, as Peter stated: “God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses. Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you [both] see and hear” (Acts 2:32-33). Those three facts are reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see Nos. 638-658). There is, in fact, plenty of compelling arguments for the Resurrection.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com). He and his family live in Eugene, Ore.

Comments Off