Matt Fradd's Blog, page 62

30 Free Copies of Delivered!

Thank you to everybody who wrote in. We wish we could have chosen all of you, but alas, we could only choose 15. Those people have been emailed. Thank you again.

If you’re a regular to my blog you know that I’ve written a book for those struggling with porn. The book is titled Delivered, True Stories of Men and Women Who Turned From Porn To Purity.

As you know, we are selling these puppies* for $2 a book in bulk (box of 20)!

Our desire, as I mentioned in the video, is to get it into as many hands as possible. In the last month we’ve sold the 5000 copies we’ve printed and have just printed a bunch more!

 We’ve decided to give away 30 books…right now.

We will ship 2 free books to the 15 of you with the most creative answers.

In order to win your 2 free books (yes, we’re paying for shipping also**), We want you to answer the following question:

What is the most good I could do with an extra copy of Delivered?

—–

* No, not real puppies.

** We will only ship to those in the US. For those of you living outside the US, have no fear! We’re selling the ebook for $1.95

*** There was no ***. Just wanted to say, if you haven’t already, you should become accountable!

Filed under: Pornography

How to Cleanse Your Mind of Porn Images

Someone recently wrote to me asking how he could “cleanse his mind” from the many pornographic images he had chosen to look at over the years.

This is a question I get frequently, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to address it.

I first stumbled upon pornography at the age of eight (hear more of my story here). It was at a relatives house; I was playing out the back and had wandered into his garage. I opened up a cool-looking wooden trunk in the corner, started rummaging around and, there it was; a centerfold of a naked woman.

I can remember nothing else about that day, but I can still (vaguely) recall that image; I even remember the background was purple. Weird.

Alright. That was twenty two years ago.

What Can Be Done?

What are we to do with these images that still exist deep within our subconscious, that reemerge at the strangest and even most inappropriate times?

Here’s what I did…and do. It’s something that was recommended to me many years back by Jason Evert in his audio set Pure of Heart (I strongly recommend it).

Several years ago, while living in Ireland, I walked into a chapel, got on my knees before a statue of the Blessed Mother and spiritually adopted every woman I had ever seen and objectified in pornography.

This did not require me conjuring up the images one by one and, as it were, handing them over the Blessed Mother. That, it seems to me, would’ve been imprudent to say the least. Instead, I prayed something like the following:

Blessed Mother, I surrender to you every woman I have ever seen and objectified in pornography. I give them to you. Guide them, protect them, lead them to your son.

Don’t Just Pray Against, Pray For The Temptation

Now, whenever I remember an image (which, I should say is rare), I don’t just pray against the temptation, I pray for the temptation. That is, I surrender this woman, who I have spiritually adopted, into the care of Mary Immaculate and pray for her.

I now see these sorts of temptations as a wonderful opportunity for intercessory prayer! If these temptations are coming from the Devil, then praying for these women isn’t going to please him and may, I suspect, even disincentivize him from sending them!

Even when I am not tempted, I often pray for these women. When I pray the rosary, I might say, “Mary, I give you those victims of the porn industry that I have spiritually adopted.”

So the next time you are reminded of an image you’ve seen in the past, you might pray something like the following:

Dear Jesus, I give you this woman; this victim of the pornography industry. Help her to know you. Help her to be happy. I give you her family, her children, if she has any, and her soul. Protect and heal her from the wounds she has received. And may I, dear Jesus, never think about this woman as a thing to be used, but as a person to be loved. Hail Mary . . .

Join The Conversation

What are some ways you have found helpful?

Filed under: Pornography

3 Things Vatican II Did Not Teach

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

In my experience, when someone ends a sentence with, “which is, after all, the spirit of Vatican II” or, “the spirit of Pope John XXIII”, they almost never know what they mean.

In fact the “spirit” they speak of is usually in direct conflict with with both Vatican II and John XXIII.

Sacrosanctum Concilium is the Vatican II document that dealt specifically with the reform of the liturgy.

In this post I thought I would (ridiculously briefly) look at three things the constitution did not say.

Ready? Let’s go!

1. Abolish Latin in the liturgy

In paragraph 54, it states: “In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and to the Common Prayer. But also as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people.”

Yet it goes on to say, “Nevertheless, steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass” (that is, the unchanging parts that we say every Sunday, such as the creed, the Gloria and the Lord’s Prayer) “which pertain to them.”

2. Give contemporary music pride of place in the liturgy

In paragraph 116, the document states: “The Church acknowledges Gregorian Chant as specially suited to the Roman Liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

3. Have the priest face the people during the liturgy

Nowhere in the document does it say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. Check for yourself. Founder and President of Ignatius Press, Fr. Joseph Fessio, says “Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.”

A Caveat

In pointing to these facts, I am not insinuating that a Mass celebrated entirely in the vernacular with contemporary music and a priest facing the congregation is wrong, sinful, or not permitted.

These things are permitted. They’re just not mandated by Vatican II – or any subsequent council for that matter.

So the next time someone tells you there Mass has really “embraced the spirit of Vatican II,” you should ask them, “oh terrific, so you have gregorian chant? The parishioners know how to say the order of the Mass in Latin? . . . “

If they look at you strange and say ‘no,’ then you might (with a look of confusion) respond with, “then what is it you mean in saying that your liturgy has embraced the spirit of Vatican II.”

Filed under: Apologetics

Arguing with Non-Catholics

A couple of nights ago I gave my talk, How to Win an Argument Without Losing a Soul.

After the talk we had about 30 minutes of questions and answers. Here is the audio of that Q&A.

Download: argument.mp3

Questions Asked

1. My friend said he doesn’t need grace because he already has it?

2. How do I explain the Eucharist to my Protestant friend?

3. What is a loving way to end a conversation that’ not going anywhere?

4. I have a tough time being a good Catholic without bringing others along, so I avoid evangelizing. Is that okay?

5. My friend always bashes the Church. How should I respond to him? Should I call it quits?

6. I get very passionate about my faith. I am often accused of shouting and coming off as too strong. Suggestions?

7. I have an acquaintance who has a gripe against a Bishop. Because of that he has left the Church. How do I witness to someone like that?

8. Is only the Catholic religion true? Will Catholics be the only ones saved?

Filed under: Apologetics

Porn: What if You Can’t Stop!?

A few years back I knew a bloke who (brace yourself…and if you’re eating, stop.) had to get an emergency circumcision (OUCH!)

Why do I bring this up?

Because the man in question often confided to me that he struggled with porn and masturbation.

A few weeks after the circumcision, I asked my limping friend, with a smirk, “so, how’s your battle with masturbation going? Still falling?”

“nope, doing just fine!” He said with a cringe.

You Just Can’t Stop?

Before his circumcision, my friend would often say, “Dude, I just can’t stop, you know?” Well, turns out he was wrong. He could stop, he just needed the motivation.

His desire to avoid pain was stronger than his desire to masturbate.

The fact is, there are all sorts of things that would sufficiently motivate us to refrain from porn and masturbation.

Suppose you were on vacation with your parents for a week and you never left their sight. I doubt you’d get to a point where you’d turn to them and say, “Mum (no, I spelt that right), Dad, this is probably going to be awkward for all of us but, I just can’t help myself!!!

What About For $150,000?

What if I told you that I would give you $5,000 per day for the next 30 days if you refrain from pornography and masturbation. If you fall even once on any day before the 30 days are up you get nothing. If you can hold out until the end of day 30, I’ll give you $150,000.

Think you could do it? Me too.

Desire

The only thing that can conquer a desire is a stronger one. So, what on earth could possibly be stronger than a man’s desire to masturbate or look at porn. Well, we’ve already seen three: to avoid pain, to avoid shame, and to make a bunch of cash.

As powerful as these motivations are, I think there is still one more that is stronger than all, our desire to love. Our desire (speaking to men here) to fight for the dignity of women.

The following clip demonstrates that well, I think. It’s the scene in Braveheart where Wallace rescues his wife, Murron from being raped. Notice your disgust towards the rapist. Notice the passion and sense of valor that stirs up within you when she is rescued (not to mention when the rapist gets kicked in the face!). We know what is masculine and what is not. We know that Wallace is the man, the soldier a coward. Check it out:

God has placed within Our hearts, as men, a desire to love. This desire is stronger than Our desire to use. Let us tap into that desire, cultivate that desire.

A Challenge

If you are trying to break free from pornography, one useful thing would be to set yourself a goal. Decide, “I will not masturbate or look at porn for ______ days/weeks.

Set a goal you know you can reach. When you reach this goal you’ll be encouraged! You’ll recognize, I think, that you actually have more control over this sin than you’ve been willing to admit. When you reach your goal (don’t celebrate by masturbating—Needed to be said), set another goal. If you fall, get up, get to confession, trust in his mercy, and start again.

Looking for a 5 Step Battle plan to combat porn use? Click here!

Filed under: Pornography

15 Things Atheists are Saying about Pope Francis

Pope Paul VI, in his apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi, wrote, “Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses.”

Well people are certainly listening to Pope Francis and I don’t think anyone would disagree that it’s due to his incredible witness. (When Pope Francis embraced that man covered with tumors, the world changed!)

I’ve spent the past hour hunting down comments from atheists posted on secular news sites. Here are fifteen, though if I kept looking I’m confident I could have found 1000.

1.

I’m an athiest and do not believe, but I love this new Pope, Pope’s are put on a pedestal and seem untouchable, this Pope, from the get go, has been a people person. You can almost feel the love radiating from him. So from one human to another, he shows such compassion and humility. Love him. - Sarah, England, UK.

2.

I’m an atheist, but i believe he is a great example of how religious folks ought to be - Cort R

3.

As an atheist (not speaking for all of them), I’m a huge fan of this pope. I think people need to find their own reason to be good to others. For some, it is god (whichever flavor he/she/it may be). Others find that they want to be good for other reasons. I’m just glad that the big C found a leader willing to try his best to not just preach to his crowd, but try to show them how.

On the other hand, some people use god as their excuse to be a d*ck. So I’m not sure if this is an example of the pope acting like a good god, but rather he is a good person and his faith only amplifies the goodness of his own character. - Wesley_Song

4.

Left the church many years ago. Don’t believe in god mainly due to the Catholics and southern baptists is was raised around. This pope embodies the teachings of the church I actually liked. He’s pro something. He takes careof the less fortunate. Wonder what our nation wld be like if all the Catholics and baptists followed his lead and voted for people who cared about the poor?? Go ahead pope. Show the way - Cellstrom.

5.

I don’t even believe in God. But, this guy, as a human being, just rocks. - Ironhand43

6.

He’s setting a new standard for future popes to follow. I’m an agnostic, but this guy has truly awed me with his actions. So unlike other popes in my lifetime (even JP2, who seemed okay to me). - Rob_Cypher

7.

I was raised Catholic but am now an atheist, but I’m growing to respect this man more and more. He’s actually following Christ’s teachings… imagine that! - Alex D

8.

[In response to Alex D was this comment,] Me too! I am returning to the church because of this fine priest! - tau4444

9.

A good person is good regardless of religion. I do believe this pope has actually publicly recognized this fact and for that (as an atheist) I applaud him. He seems a very good man. My respect for him grows by the day. - Marc T

10.

As an atheist, let me say that I wish more people in general, religious or otherwise, followed this man’s example. The world would be a better place for it. - Thank4Watching

11.

As an atheist, I’m impressed, I feel jaded about a lot of religions these days . . .

[but] it looks like this pope is making an effort to do some good in the world rather then take advantage of it. - Theoricus

12.

I’m an Atheist, and even I have respect for this guy. If he can get Christians to actually act like christians, maybe I won’t have such an issue with “organized” religion. - John S

13.

As an atheist, I’m officially changing my opinion of him from ‘admired’ to ‘loved’. This is precisely the “walking the walk” the world needs, especially from its religious population. - Michael Kirby

14.

As an atheist this pope does many great things, I still disagree with the church as a whole but as a person this pope gets it. He is a great role model as a person not a living deity. - Vendictavis

15.

I don’t believe in gods and myths, but this man is truly a man of his word and someone everyone could look upon as a role model. I just wish that more holier than thou types could be like this man, if so the world would be a better place.Walks what he talks. - Joe Bigg

The Best Argument For and Against Christianity is Christians

Whether we like it or not, I think it’s true. To quote Sheldon Vanauken:

“The best argument for Christianity is Christians: their joy, their certainty, their completeness. But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians–when they are sombre and joyless, when they are self-righteous and smug in complacent consecration, when they are narrow and repressive, then Christianity dies a thousand deaths.

Pope Francis is a good argument for Christianity, what about you? What about me?

Join The Discussion

How has Pope Francis inspired you?

Do you have friends or family members whose faith has been invigorated due to Pope Francis’ example?

Filed under: Atheism

Pope Francis said WHAT at the 3rd Vatican Council?

I was contacted by a protestant friend of mine this morning who was quite disturbed by what Pope Francis had apparently said at the 3rd Vatican Council. “Let me stop you right there, I said…”

He pointed me to a website.

“What if—I know this is a little out there, but hear me out—what if it were, say, possible for websites to have false information. I know! I know! I sound like a conspiracy theorist, next I’ll be claiming that 9/11 was an inside job and that Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon…”

Okay, enough of that.

Here’s the low-down.

Recently there was a blog posted by Diversity Chronicle claiming that Pope Francis said (at Vatican III) among other things:

“Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God.”

This is entirely false, obviously.

Click the “disclaimer” tag up the top and you’ll read that “The original content on this blog is largely satirical. . .  I created this blog for my own personal amusement.”

So there you have it.

If someone questions you about what the Pope declared at Vatican III, I would advise you to giggle, pass them a caramel, point out to them that there has been no such council, and refer them to the snopes.com. A site dedicated to debunking myths so you don’t have to.

Filed under: Apologetics

Objection to the Immaculate Conception

I want to thank everybody for their great answers!

In hindsight 150 words was far too few! My bad.

One common misconception many people had was that Mary had to have been immaculate in order for Jesus to be sinless. This isn’t true. If it were, it would mean that Mary’s Mother, Anne, would have had to be immaculately conceived also (and her mother, and her mother . . .).  While It wasn’t necessary that Mary be sinless, it was fitting.

In this post I’d like to show how I would have answered the objection, my answer in no way is meant to be the answer (like the upside down answers at the back of a cross word book), but some of you asked for it.

I’ll then display the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best answers.

Objection

No where in Sacred Scripture does it say that Mary was sinless. Rather, it says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The Immaculate conception is an invention of the Catholic Church which every Christian should reject as false!

My Answer

There are three claims being made here: 1) Mary’s sinlessness isn’t taught in Sacred Scripture. 2) That Romans 3:23 is a good reason to think Mary was a sinner, and 3) the immaculate conception is something the Catholic Church invented.

Let’s address them in order:

1. This isn’t a good argument for at least two reasons.

First, not everything we are bound to believe as Christians is taught explicitly in Scripture. For example, The Bible doesn’t teach us what books belong in it (there is no inspired index).

Secondly, I can only think of only a couple of places (here and here) where the sinlessness of Christ is taught explicitly (there are certainly places which teach it implicitly, but then I would say the same of Mary). If this is true of Christ, why would we expect to find Mary’s sinlessness taught explicitly.

2. Romans 3:23 is not a universal claim. It admits at least one exception, Jesus Christ (not to mention babies and severely retarded persons). If Christ, the new Adam, is an exception, then Mary, the new Eve [1], could be an exception also.

3. Though the immaculate conception was not officially defined until 1854, that doesn’t prove that it’s an invention of the Catholic Church. The Divinity of Christ, for example, was not officially defined by the Church until the 4th century, the two natures of Christ (Divine and human) until the 5th, neither example proves that the Church “invented” these doctrines.

Rather, the immaculate conception, the Divinity of Christ, and the hypostatic union were believed since the apostolic age, yet in primitive form (St. Peter almost certainly woulnd’t have said of Christ, “Oh Jesus? Yeah, the dude is one person who subsists in two natures; Divine and human. Cool, no?”)

To show that Mary’s sinlessness was held by the earliest Christians, let me offer an excerpt from St. Augustine of Hippo, writing in the 400′s:

We make an exception for the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom, for the sake of the Lord’s honour, I would in no way like to be mentioned in connection with sin. Do we not know why she was granted a greater grace in view of the complete victory over sin, she who merited to conceive and give birth to him who obviously had no sin? (De natura et gratia, n. 42).

Learn more about what the earliest Christians believed and taught by getting Jimmy Akin’s awesome book, The Father’s Know Best.

Winners

I selected the winners based on accuracy, creativity, and sticking to the word count (something I totally didn’t do, but hey, it’s my site).

I have emailed the winners.

I hope that everyone will be a good sport about the answers I chose. It’s my hope that through exchanging ideas that we will grow together into more informed and effective apologists.

1st Prize (book and mp3)

Without the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, you have no basis for your belief that “something in the Bible has to be true,” including Romans 3:23. With no external verification, the Bible might just be a bunch of old books as truthful or fictitious as Homer’s epics or the legend of King Arthur. If you believe the Bible is Truth because it claims for itself that it is Truth, then wouldn’t you be obligated to believe this post? After all, it says it is true right at the beginning.

The Catholic Church was the first entity to consider St. Paul’s letter to the Romans to be the inspired Word of God. “The Bible is God’s Word” is itself, and necessarily so, an invention of the Catholic Church. If you believe that “invention,” why do you not believe our other “inventions?” – Sean Flynn 

2nd Prize (mp3)

If Paul literally means ALL have sinned, and you admit no exceptions whatsoever, then you must include Jesus in your register of those who have sinned. If it seems unreasonable to you that Jesus has sinned, then perhaps there is more context in the rest of Paul’s writings. Let’s explore those together, shall we? - Luke

3rd Prize (mp3)

Many times in scripture the word “all” is used but there may be some exceptions- Similar to John baptizing all the nations (Matt. 3:5). Some exceptions to having sinned include Jesus, aborted babies, people with special needs, to name a few. Jesus (sinless) is the fulfillment of the Old Testment Adam. Mary is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Eve and also sinless as everything in the new perfects the old covenant. – Jordan

—–

Endnotes

[1] Why is Mary the new Eve? Simply put, the first woman—herself a virgin—consented to the (fallen) angel and brought forth death upon the human race. The second women—herself a virgin—consented to the angel and brought forth life himself (and the possibility of eternal life) for the human race.

Filed under: Answer Me This

Responding to the “Jesus Only” Claim

Someone recently wrote to me saying that she had stopped going to Mass.

She says she can’t find peace there; that she “connects” with God in nature.

I’m not sure that she denies the lordship of Christ. She says things like, “I think we should follow Christ in a way that means something to us . . . the main thing is that we love him.”

You’ve probably heard things similar.

Sometimes protestants (the kind who’ve probably never heard the term protestant—those who embrace the term usually are’t so silly) will say, “why do I need to bother with these sacraments, with what the Church says, all that matters is Jesus and him only.”

How should we respond to this?

Here’s one way; I used it just today with the lady I mentioned. Here’s how the back and forth went:

Me: What would you think of a man who said that he didn’t need to bother washing the dishes or bathing the kids, and that what mattered most was that he loved his wife.

Lady: Your really comparing the church and sacraments to dishes and bathing the kids…haha. I spose in a way baptism washes kids. ;p

Me: Humor me and follow the thought experiment.

Lady: Id say he’s a lazy so and so.

Me: Perhaps, but shouldn’t he love his wife in the way that means something to him? For this man, making love to his wife is the way that he “connects” with her, the rest is secondary, unessential.

Lady: shouldn’t he be interested in her needs? the dude’s a pig!

I think she’s right.

The man in question should be interested in what his wife wants. Loving someone entails, to some degree at least, doing what pleases them, doing what they ask of you, right?

Now, while we’re not required to do everything our spouse asks of us, (she may ask me to do something immoral in which case I ought to refuse!) we are required to do everything God commands of us.

So since Loving God entails a desire to do what he wants of us.

and God wants thing of us.

therefore we should desire to do the things he wants of us.

“Lord, Lord” Is Not Enough

As Christ himself put it, “Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 7:21).

So If God has commanded us to be baptized (John 3:5) then we ought to be baptized. If he has told us that the Eucharist is his body and blood and that unless we consume it we will not have everlasting life (John 6:53) then we should consume it. If he has given authority to the Church (Mt 16:18), he he has said of the Church “He who hears you, hears me” (Lk 10:16), then we should take him at his word and submit to his authority.

Join The Discussion

How would you respond to someone who says “all that matters is that you love Jesus”?

Filed under: Apologetics

7 Reasons Christ Was Circumcised

The circumcision of Jesus Christ.

With the feast of the circumcision of Christ coming up I thought I’d share the following excerpt from St. Thomas Aquias.

In his Summa Theologica (Part three, Question 37), Aquinas offered seven reasons why it was fitting for Christ to be Circumcised.

He writes:

For several reasons Christ ought to have been circumcised.

First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature, in contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ’s body was consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine, who said that Christ brought His body from heaven.

Secondly, in order to show His approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old.

Thirdly, in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in Him.

Fourthly, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if He were uncircumcised.

Fifthly, “in order by His example to exhort us to be obedient” [Bede, Hom. x in Evang.]. Wherefore He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the prescription of the Law (Leviticus 12:3).

Sixthly, “that He who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed.”

Seventhly, that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to Galatians 4:4-5: “God sent His Son . . . made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law.”

Filed under: Apologetics