7 Harmful Catholic Urban Legends

The humorist John Billings once said:

"It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so."

This is especially true in the Catholic faith.  Catholicism is a big crazy thing and there is no telling what people will do with it sometimes.  A person will invent some quirky habit and pass it onto others as if it came straight from the top - so to speak.

Today I want to address seven things which Catholics are often SURE is part of Catholic teaching ... but actually aren't.  What's worse, these myths often leave people hurt and confused.

So let's dive in.

How Does a Catholic Read: Revelation 22:18-19

Recently I had the idea to canvas some of my non-Catholic Christian friends and ask, "What verses of the New Testament do you think Catholics simply don't get?"  One suggestion was Revelation 22:18-19 - a text which is often used to support the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".

[For background on Sola Scriptura and why it matters, you'll find that discussion -here-]

So today we're going to examine the passage, apply it to the Sola Scriptura controversy... and answer the question:

"What the heck does a Catholic do with Revelation 22:18-19?"

Bathroom Wars 101

Across the United States there is a debate about who gets to enter the Men's and Women's restroom and locker rooms.  I recently made a video in which I explain the philosophy behind the argument.  Enjoy!

A Dangerous Slogan: "The Eucharist is not a reward for the perfect..."

Slogans can be powerful things.  Think of the phrases, "No taxation without representation", "Remember the Alamo", and "Remember the Maine".  Bloody wars were fought over those words.

There has been another slogan I have heard bandied about in Catholic circles for the past couple years.  It has recently been repeated by such notable figures as Pope Francis and Lady Gaga.  That phrase is:

"The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but medicine for sinners."

Today I wanted to discuss why people should be very wary when hearing that slogan.

Two Paths Away From "Pro-Life"

The term "Pro-Life" emerges from the debate surrounding the legality of abortion. In its most basic form it means the following:

 “The right to life – the right to not be unjustly killed - is a basic human right.  It should be protected by law for everyone from the beginning of life to its natural end.”

Since the above position does not entail any particular economic worldview, a wide array of perspectives can fit under the umbrella of the Pro-Life cause.

You could be a Libertarian (someone who favors a minimalist view of the role of government) and affirm it because maintaining non-violence is a legitimate role of the State.  You could also be a Socialist who thinks the State should take care over everyone's needs.  Or many worldviews in between.

So Pro-Lifers might disagree wildly on tons of stuff, but they should be united on one thing:  The conviction that pre-birth babies are real human beings and the legal institution of abortion is a human rights violation which needs to end.

Sometimes, sadly, the reality of American politics leads people astray.  That's what I want to look at today.

How Should Pro-Life Candidates Respond: Assault Cases

In the United States, the debate surrounding abortion is contentious and ongoing.  The public is pretty evenly divided.  However, most of the print and broadcast media is staffed by people who defend the abortion industry and see it as normal.  As a result, Pro-Life candidates are often asked detailed ethical questions about their stance on abortion.  The most common of which is how Pro-Life legislation interacts with the case of rape.  

Unfortunately, many Pro-Life candidates cannot be bothered to prepare for these inevitable questions and end up making fools of themselves when answering these questions on air.  In 2012, Candidate Todd Akin of Missouri infamously responded by theorizing about female biology.  Candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana decided to mutter something about the will of God.  Both saw their political careers go down in flames.

So what should Pro-Life candidates say?

Here is a response which I think Pro-Life candidates should practice in front of a mirror:

 (It can be recited at a conversational pace in 2 minutes 45 seconds)

Is the Church Inconsistent on Family Planning?

In 1967 Pope Paul VI released encyclical called Humanae Vitae.  The document upheld the perennial (and traditionally Christian) teaching that contraception was contrary to the moral law.  However, the same document goes on to endorse "natural means" of postponing the conception of children.

Humanity has long known that a woman's menstrual cycle has spaces of fertility and infertility.  Couples have used this fact to space out children by not having sex during the fertile periods.

In the past this was done through the "Rhythm Method".  It relied on averages and personal menstrual history to guess where a woman is in her cycle.  Its usefulness and reliability have well-known limitations.

A more modern method is called Natural Family Planning (NFP).  It also uses abstinence during fertile periods, but relies on various biometric markers to identify signs of a woman’s fertility.  This method is far less dependent on a woman's regularity and – (when practiced rigorously) - achieves levels of certainty equivalent to modern forms of contraception.

And again, this method is approved by the Catholic Church.

Some people see the Church’s approval of NFP as arbitrary and inconsistent.  They will commonly object:

“When non-Catholics want to have sex without having a baby, they use contraception.  When Catholics want to have sex without having a baby they use natural family planning.  It’s the exact same thing.”

Well... is it?