Byline: Carl E. Olson

3 min read

Eternal Life

Believing In Purgatory

Carl E. Olson

September 16, 2023 7:00 am September 16, 2023

3 min read

8934 views

Comments Off

3 min read

There are, sadly, some Catholics who do not believe in purgatory. Happily, the Catholic Church still teaches that purgatory is real. Why? Because the Catholic Church believes in the sanctifying…

There are, sadly, some Catholics who do not believe in purgatory. Happily, the Catholic Church still teaches that purgatory is real.

Why? Because the Catholic Church believes in the sanctifying work of Jesus Christ, the reality of God’s justice and mercy, and the fact that man has two options for eternity: heaven or hell.

But why do I say “happily”? Because purgatory, properly understood, is the mercy and grace of God at work, and so is a revelation of His love. Of course, the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of purgatory are many. It is sometimes presented as being on an equal plane with heaven or hell. However, purgatory is not a final destination, but rather a state of preparation for the destination of heaven. Some think purgatory is a second chance, as if upon death there is a sign before us, stating, “Left to Hell; Right to Heaven.” But after death, there is judgment (see Heb 9:27), which means our decision has already been made, on this side of the grave. Likewise, purgatory is not part of hell. Yes, there is suffering in purgatory, but it is the joyful suffering of those being completely cleansed of all impurity so they can enter the presence of God. This is radically different from the torment of hell.

Anyone who thinks purgatory is somehow separate from the work of God is mistaken. The very name, purgatory, comes from a Latin word purgatorium, referring to purification. This should raise basic questions: Who is being purified? By whom? For what reason?

The great Swiss theologian Father Hans Urs von Balthasar put it very well when he wrote: “God is the ‘last thing’ of the creature. Gained, he is paradise; lost, he is hell; examining, he is judgment; purifying, he is purgatory.” All, in the end, is about God. And that includes purgatory, which exists for a single goal: complete and full communion with God in heaven. This divine purification, then, must be seen within the big picture of what the Church teaches about the last things: death, judgment, hell, heaven.

Yet not all of the righteous are completely free of imperfections and lesser, or venial (Latin, venia, meaning “pardonable”), sins. Once the righteous die, they are bound for heaven. But if they are not yet completely holy, they have need of further sanctification and therefore head to what C.S. Lewis described as a divine “washroom.”

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (Nos. 1030-31, emphasis in original).

Although the word purgatory is not in the Bible, the idea certainly is (just as the word Trinity is not in Scripture, but is thoroughly scriptural).

Paul, in a passage about good works, wrote, “If anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, the work of each will come to light; for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work” (1 Cor 3:12-13). In some cases, fire will burn up a man’s work and he “will suffer loss,” yet “the person will be saved, but only as through fire” (see 1 Cor 3:15). The mystics call this “the fire of love.”

God is “a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29); His divine love torments those who reject Him but perfects those who humbly accept Him. And that state of purification between death and heaven is purgatory.

Comments Off

4 min read

Culture

What Is Secularism?

Carl E. Olson

August 10, 2023 8:57 am August 10, 2023

4 min read

7630 views

Comments Off

4 min read

Catholics — especially those engaged in apologetics, evangelization and catechesis — hear a lot about secularism. There is the challenge of secularism, the spread of secularism, and the dangers of…

Catholics — especially those engaged in apologetics, evangelization and catechesis — hear a lot about secularism.

There is the challenge of secularism, the spread of secularism, and the dangers of secularism. But what is secularism? If you had to sum up secularism in a single sentence, how would you define it? What are the essential features of secularism?

That’s asking quite a bit, especially when I won’t be able to fully answer those questions in a single column, let alone a sentence. In offering three brief observations about the nature of secularism, I will draw on the thought of three men: a Catholic philosopher, a Calvinist professor and a Russian Orthodox priest.

Charles Taylor is a Canadian philosopher whose 2007 book “A Secular Age” has been widely praised for its thought-provoking insights into secularism. Taylor is especially keen to challenge the “secularization theory” — the belief that as modernity and science spread, religious belief will decrease, eventually becoming either rare or extinct. This is a presuppositon of most so-called new atheists, who pit science against religion and reason against faith. This leads to secularism being understood as the absence of belief in God. Taylor, however, distinguishes between three sorts of “secular.” The first is the classical understanding, referring to the earthly, temporal order. The second is the widely accepted notion of the absence of religious belief and participation. The third is Taylor’s definition of secularism being “a move from a society where belief in God is unchallenged and indeed, unproblematic, to one in which it is understood to be one option among others, and frequently not the easiest to embrace.” This is unique to the modern era of human history, for people are now able to embrace “a purely self-sufficient humanism” aimed as material flourishing, without consideration of a transcedent order and reality.

James K.A. Smith is a professor of philosphy at Calvin College whose book “How (Not) to Be Secular” (2014) is a sort of CliffsNotes version of Taylor’s book. Smith, like Taylor, points out that “secular fundamentalists” often act as if their confident appeals to science and reason have adequately explained every aspect of reality. This, Smith argues, is only so much “secularist spin” that is, in fact, “the denial of contestability and thus the refusal to recognize secularity.”

Put another way, such secularists have simply created a narrative based on their materialist, scientistic assumptions, but without actually offering either real proof or satisfying explanations for a whole host of things. Among those is the deep sense of unease and malaise people feel or sense because, Smith notes, “our age is haunted,” bringing to mind the stories of Walker Percy and Flannery O’Connor. Percy, an agnostic as a youth, once wrote of his conversion to Catholicism: “This life is much too much trouble, far too strange, to arrive at the end of it and then be asked what you make of it and have to answer, ‘Scientific humanism.’ That won’t do. A poor show. Life is a mystery, love is a delight. Therefore, I take it as axiomatic that one should settle for nothing less than the infinite mystery and infinite delight.” Secular humanism simply does not satisfy hungry souls and searching hearts.

Father Alexander Schmemann was one of the greatest Eastern Orthodox thinkers of the past century. My favorite book of his is “For The Life of the World,” written just over 50 years ago, a profound study of worship and sacramentality. In the final chapter, “Worship In a Secular Age,” He states that he thinks most people have missed the essential core — or grave defect — of secularism. “Secularism, I submit, is above all a negation of worship…. If secularism in theological terms is a heresy, it is primarily a heresy about man. It is the negation of man as a worshiping being.” Father Schmemann points out that secularism is not the same as atheism; in fact, secularism does not try to eliminate God as much as completely change man’s relationship with God. Put very simply, God becomes a commodity for our use. Man was made to adore, but has chosen to be autonomous. And now man is haunted, trapped in his secularist cage.

Carl E. Olson is the editor of Ignatius Insight (www.ignatiusinsight.com) and writes from Oregon.

Comments Off

4 min read

Evangelization

Apologetics, Catechesis and Evangelization Today

Carl E. Olson

June 15, 2023 7:00 am June 15, 2023

4 min read

5155 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

6 min read

Scripture

The Real Mary Magdalene

Carl E. Olson

May 1, 2023 3:57 am May 1, 2023

6 min read

23419 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

7 min read

Church Documents

‘Veritatis Splendor’ at 30: Four essential truths taught by St. Pope John Paul II

Carl E. Olson

April 30, 2023 9:00 am April 30, 2023

7 min read

751 views

Comments Off

7 min read

Aug. 6 marks the 30th anniversary of Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor (”The Splendor of Truth”). It is the first and only papal encyclical focused on moral…

Aug. 6 marks the 30th anniversary of Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor (”The Splendor of Truth”). It is the first and only papal encyclical focused on moral theology. Its continued importance cannot be underestimated, even while its teachings are often overlooked or even ignored.

It is a rather dense document, making for difficult reading at times. But it is also very direct in addressing postconciliar confusion about foundational truths regarding morality, freedom and conscience. Here are four essential truths the pope taught through the encyclical.

1. Man can know the truth. Truth makes man what he is. We are called to know truth; it is truth that sets us free.

The opening lines of the encyclical state: “The splendor of truth shines forth in all the works of the Creator and, in a special way, in man, created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:26). Truth enlightens man’s intelligence and shapes his freedom, leading him to know and love the Lord” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 1).

This is a summary of what we call “natural law.” As St. John Paul states a bit later in the document, “Only God can answer the question about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given an answer to this question: He did so by creating man and ordering him with wisdom and love to his final end, through the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the ‘natural law’” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 12).

Truth is what is real. To grasp truth is to see things and relationships as they are, through use of reason and correct judgment. Contrary to the relativistic and even fatalistic views popular today, we are created in truth and for truth.

2. Christ is the true light: St. John Paul begins by reflecting on original sin. We are tempted to turn away from God and toward idols. “Man’s capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 1).

The solution to that darkness is “Jesus Christ, the true light that enlightens everyone,” he writes. “The “decisive answer” to all of our questions “is given by Jesus Christ, or rather is Jesus Christ himself.”

St. John Paul then focuses on Christ’s statement: “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,” words that contain “both a fundamental requirement and a warning.” We must avoid false and superficial “freedoms”; we need, as St. John Paul wrote earlier in Redemptor Hominis (”Redeemer of Man”) to “see Christ as the one who brings man freedom based on truth, frees man from what curtails, diminishes and, as it were, breaks off this freedom at its root, in man’s soul, his heart and his conscience” (Redemptor Hominis, No. 35).

The first major section of Veritatis Splendor is focused on the dialogue of Jesus with the rich young man (cf. Mt 19). Which brings us to the third truth.

3. True freedom is freedom for the good. John Paul II notes that for the rich young man, “the question is not so much about rules to be followed, but about the full meaning of life.” Which is why Jesus responded: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 6).

If we are honest, we recognize our desire for Something or Someone beyond ourselves. The transitory things of this world cannot satisfy us. We long for what is good: “Only God can answer the question about what is good, because he is the Good itself. To ask about the good, in fact, ultimately means to turn towards God, the fullness of goodness” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 9).

But if God alone is the Good, our natural human efforts, including keeping the commandments, cannot fulfill the Law. “The essence of legalism is the conviction that doing the right things will suffice.” What must be done? We must participate in the very life of God, by his grace and mercy, in order to attain the beatitude and happiness we desire (cf. Veritatis Splendor, Nos. 12 and 41).

Many people mistake “freedom” with individual autonomy. But true freedom is not given so man can do whatever he pleases, but so he can choose the good. “Genuine freedom is an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 34).

In sum, true freedom is freedom for the good. In this true freedom, we find our real dignity. “Freedom then,” writes St. John Paul, “is rooted in the truth about man, and it is ultimately directed towards communion” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 86).

4. One’s conscience judges an act. It does not determine moral truth. “Conscience” is a key word in Veritatis Splendor, appearing 108 times. St. John Paul knew that many people erroneously think their conscience is the final guide to what is truth and good. “The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment,” he writes, “which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 32).

He notes that some people set aside truth and replace it with “a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and ‘being at peace with oneself,’” which can lead to “a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.”

Ironically, those claiming they have attained “truth” by appealing to their conscience actually deny the existence of a universal, objective truth. The problem worsens when they construct a morality based on whims divorced from universal truth. The conscience is given “the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.” This reflects “an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 32).

Ultimately, this leads to a denial of “the very idea of human nature.” There are two ways of approaching reality: trying to create our own reality, which is destructive, or conforming ourselves to reality — to what really is.

And, importantly, one’s conscience can be wrong! “Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 62). The conscience cannot create moral truth; rather, it makes an informed judgment about actions, based on what is true and morally right, because conscience “is a moral judgment about man and his actions, a judgment either of acquittal or of condemnation, according as human acts are in conformity or not with the law of God written on the heart” (Veritatis Splendor, No. 59).

In 1998, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger described Veritatis Splendor as “a milestone in the elaboration of the moral message of Christianity” while noting that it had “more positive receptions among thinkers outside the Church than among some exponents of Catholic theology.”

The situation remains much the same today. Truths about man, Christ, freedom and conscience still require clear explanations and consistent applications. This great encyclical has yet to be studied, assimilated and applied as deeply as it should be.

Carl E. Olson is editor of Catholic World Report and Ignatius Insight and the author of several books. Follow him on Twitter @carleolson.

Comments Off

4 min read

Jesus

Defending the Resurrection

Carl E. Olson

April 17, 2023 1:52 pm April 17, 2023

4 min read

8715 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 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