Matt Fradd's Blog, page 63

Who Wants to Be an Apologist?

THE WINNERS HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED! CLICK HERE!

I’m trying something new.

Every week, on his site, my friend Brandon Vogt gives away free books and DVD’s. He’s inspired me to something similar.

If this goes well I’ll make it a regular feature.

Instead of me doing the hard work of a Catholic apologist, I’m going to invite you to do it!

I’m going to pose an objection to the Catholic faith which I’d like you to answer (in no more than 150 words) in the comment section below.

Prizes

1st Prize: Whoever offers the best answer (in my opinion) will win Trent Horn’s new book, Answering Atheism (I’ll even pay the shipping), and my talk on the Blessed Mother, Behold Your Mother.

2nd and 3rd Prize: The second and third best answers will win just the talk.

To be eligible your answer will need to be in no later than Saturday the 4th at 9am (PST), or when (if) we get 50 comments or more.

Are you ready? Here’s the 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!

I’m looking forward to your answers! Let’s take this opportunity to learn how to defend this doctrine through, not only personal study, buy by reading each other’s answers!

Filed under: Who Wants to Be an Apologist?

Answer Me This!

I’m trying something new.

Every week, on his site, my friend Brandon Vogt gives away free books and DVD’s. He’s inspired me to something similar.

If this goes well I’ll make it a regular feature.

Instead of me doing the hard work of a Catholic apologist, I’m going to invite you to do it!

I’m going to pose an objection to the Catholic faith which I’d like you to answer (in no more than 150 words) in the comment section below.

Prizes

1st Prize: Whoever offers the best answer (in my opinion) will win Trent Horn’s new book, Answering Atheism (I’ll even pay the shipping), and my talk on the Blessed Mother, Behold Your Mother.

2nd and 3rd Prize: The second and third best answers will win just the talk.

To be eligible your answer will need to be in no later than Saturday the 4th at 9am (PST)

Are you ready? Here’s the 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!

I’m looking forward to your answers! Let’s take this opportunity to learn how to defend this doctrine through, not only personal study, buy by reading each other’s answers!

Filed under: Answer Me This

Did St. Paul Downplay Baptism??

St. Paul

This is the sort of post that I’m massively interested in writing but you’re probably not the slightest interested in reading.

Joke (but not really).

In today’s post I’d like to address a particular verse of scripture that some protestants will offer when arguing against the necessity of baptism.

The verse comes from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

“I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1: 14-17. Emphasis mine).

The key phrase some Protestants point to is the one in bold, “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.” If Baptism is necessary for salvation, they will say, then why is Paul distinguishing it from the gospel, which he later says—in the same letter no less—saves us? (1 Cor. 15: 1-2) [1] The conclusion drawn is that while baptism is important, it is not necessary for salvation.

I will respond to this objection in two ways.

Context, Context, Context

My first response would be to say that a text without context is often a pretext for a proof text.

It’s irresponsible (not to mention silly) to read a text without taking into account the context of the entire text (that was a mouthful).

I would share with my protestant brother an example. Suppose I said that Luke 18:19 proves that Jesus isn’t God, because Jesus says to the rich ruler, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone?” That would seem to suggest that Jesus isn’t God right?

Well, taken out of context, maybe, but taken in context, not at all!

(Here’s a few NT verses that seem to say that he is God: Matthew 28:17; John 1:1;14; John 5:17,18; John 5:23; John 8:24; John 8:58; John 10:30; John 14:6-7; John 14:9-11; John 20:28; Acts 4:12; Philippians 2:5-7; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8,9; 2 John 1:7; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 22:13;16).

In a similar way, even if I found 1 Corinithians 1:14-17 problematic, I wouldn’t find it so problematic that it would explain away the passages in Scripture that seem to say that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Consider the following three:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. – John 3:5

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” – Mark 16:16

“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 3:21

See also: Matthew 1:21, 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-17; Luke 24:45-47; John 3:5, 5:43, 14:26, 20:20-23; Acts 2:38, 4:10-12, 8:16; 10:36-48; 1 Peter 3:20-21; Acts 9:18, 16:15-33, 18:8, 19:1-6, 22;16; Romans 6:1-5, 10:13; 1 Corinthians 1:1-21; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 2:9-12, 3;17; Titus 3:5)

“Not . . .But” Construction

To answer the objection directly, I’d invite my Protestant brother to reflect upon the line, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.”

We see here what’s been called a “not…but” construction that is used elsewhere in Scripture. When it is used it isn’t used to denigrate the former but to emphasize the latter.

In John 6:27 Jesus says, “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life” (emphasis mine…obviously). Now, you should ask your Protestant friend, does Jesus mean that we ought not labor for food? Obviously not.

Or what about the following verses:

Matthew 10:34 – “I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” Did he not come to bring peace?

Matthew 20:28 – “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.” Are we not to serve him?

Mark 9:37 – “Whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” Is Jesus saying if we receive him we wont receive him?

John 12:44 – Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. (This is getting comical.)

John 1:13 – “Who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” You get the point.

John 11:4 – “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God.”

Acts 5:4 – “You have not lied to men but to God.”

Romans 8:9 – “You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God

dwells in you.”

Conclusion

When we take into account the context and this “not . . . but” construction we see that Paul wasn’t downplaying baptism at all. Rather he was emphasizing the truth of the Gospel to the Church at Corinth whose theology of baptism had become perverted.

He writes, earlier in the same chapter, “it has been reported to me by Chlo’e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (11-13).

It in this context that the following line makes sense, “I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name” (14-15).

The “not . . . but” construction in this case, it seems to me, indicates that what the Church at Corinth needed was the unperverted truth of the gospel. That Christ is not divide, that it was Christ and not Paul who was crucified for them (13).

Elsewhere we see Paul demonstrate a very clear understanding of the salvific nature of baptism:

“he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

(See also: Romans 6:1-5, 10:13; 1 Corinthians 1:1-21; Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 2:9-12, 3;17;)

Want to learn more? You should listen to my hour radio interview on Catholic Answers Live, and read my article, Baptismal Confusion, which examines some Protestant objections and looks at what the earliest Christians after the Apostles had to say on the matter.

—–

Endnotes

[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed in vain.

Filed under: Apologetics

Your Sin and God’s Mercy

The Prodigal son (Luke 15: 11-32).

Several years ago, while waiting in line for confession, to confess—for the umpteenth millionth time—a sin I couldn’t seem to stop, I became afraid. What if God’s mercy was running out on me? Slowly evaporating or something until one day he said, “enough’s enough. You’re cut off. No more mercy for your” (Like the soup nazi guy from Seinfeld).

I know that I’m not alone in this fear. Many of us anthropomorphize God, that is, reduce him who is infinite in all of his attributes (including mercy) to our level. Since we are unable to forgive continually, the same must be true of God, right?

False. Thank God!

In the midst of this fear, I was reminded of that scene in Matthew’s gospel where Peter approached Jesus and asked, “‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?’Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven’” (Mt 18:21-22).

Now what our Lord certainly did not mean, was that Peter was to forgive his brother 490 times and no more, but rather that his forgiveness ought to be perfect and consistent. Why? Because that is the nature of God’s mercy. Perfect and consistent.

If you are doubtful of God’s unfailing mercy towards you, may the three following quotes kick your butt:

1. You are Bathed in Love and Mercy

“I assure you, we are bathed in love and mercy. We each have a Father, a Brother, a Friend, a Spouse of our soul, Center and King of our hearts, Redeemer and Savior, bend down over us, over our weakness and our impotence, like that of little children, with an inexpressible gentleness, watching over us like the apple of His eye, who said, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice”, a Jesus haunted by the desire to save us by all means, who has opened Heaven under our feet. And we live, too often like orphans, like abandoned children, as if it were Hell which had opened under out feet. We are men of little faith!”

— Fr. Jean C. J. d’Elbée.

2. His Mercy Prevails Over All Malice

“I glorify You in making known how good You are towards sinners, and that Your mercy prevails over all malice, that nothing can destroy it, that no matter how many times or how shamefully we fall, or how criminally, a sinner need not be driven to despair of Your pardon…It is in vain that Your enemy and mine sets new traps for me every day. He will make me lose everything else before the hope that I have in Your mercy.”

— St. Claude de la Colombiere

3. The Confidence We Should Have

“It is not because I have been preserved from mortal sin that I go to God with confidence and love. Even if I had on my conscience all the crimes that one could commit, I am sure I would lose nothing of my confidence; I would throw myself, my heart broken with sorrow, into the arms of my Savior. I know how much He loves the prodigal son; I have heard His words to Mary Magdalene, to the woman taken in adultery, to the Samaritan woman. No, there is no one who could frighten me, for I know too well what to believe about His mercy, about His love. I know that in the twinkling of an eye, all those thousands of sins would be consumed as a drop of water cast into a blazing fire.”

— St. Therese of Lisieux

Filed under: Apologetics, Pornography

Homosexuality and the “Duck Dynasty” Debate

The following article was written byTrent Horn, and is posted here with his permission.

Caution: This post contains graphic depictions of human anatomy and sex acts.

So apparently there’s a popular reality show on A&E called Duck Dynasty that follows the lives of a group of down-to-earth, Southern, duck-hunting entrepreneurs known for their Christian values and long beards. I’ve never really given the show much thought, except for wondering why my colleague Jimmy Akin, who sports an equally awesome beard, has never made a guest appearance.

But now one of the main actors, Phil Robertson, has been indefinitely suspended from the show for comments he made about homosexuality and race. I don’t have the space to address both comments, so let’s focus on the ones getting the most attention.

Vile and Disgusting?

When I saw the headlines about what Robertson said, I braced myself for the worst. Apparently he had made a “homophobic rant,” composed of “vile” and “disgusting” comments about homosexuality. So what did he say? Here are the comments (from a recent interviewRobertson did for GQ magazine) starting with the interviewer setting the scene:

Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

If this comment makes you squeamish, then perhaps it is anal sex that you think is vile and disgusting and not Robertson. To me this seems like a classic case of “shooting the messenger.” Robertson is just offering an opinion that is not too far from the natural law theory of morality.

Now, I can see where some people will start to twist what he is saying, so let me try to head them off at the pass. Women are not equivalent to vaginas and men don’t value women solely because they form a sexual complement to men.

However, Robertson makes a sensible point. Along with providing intense pleasure for the man and woman, sexual intercourse through the vagina does have more to offer than anal sex: It can create a new human being who is made in the image and likeness of God. The creation of the child serves as a sign of the couple’s faithful, total, and lifelong gift of self to one another.

I also think it’s perfectly valid to ask if the anus, which primarily serves the body in waste disposal, is “for” sex. Websites that promote anal sex admit, “The rectum is not built to have things go in; only out. The vagina stretches to let in a penis and give birth, but a rectum does not.” (Source – Caution: explicit material). Even pro-LGBT cancer awareness websites acknowledge that men who have sex with men are between 20 and 40 times more likely to develop anal cancer.

It boggles my mind that in our culture even raising the question of whether or not anal sex is a good idea is labeled “bigotry” and the topic is deemed unworthy of discussion.

Comparing and Labeling Sin

Here’s another quote getting a lot of attention:

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

[The interviewer asks] What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

I do agree with Robertson that, as Isaiah 5:20 puts it, our culture frequently describes evil things as being good and good things as being evil. However, I don’t think it’s wise to directly compare bestiality and homosexual behavior. While there are many people (including opposite-sex and same-sex couples) who engage in sex acts solely to fulfill a base desire for sex, most same-sex couples probably use sex as a way to express feelings of love and affection for one another.

A better comparison is people who have multiple partners (or as Robertson puts it, are “sleeping around”), or even polygamy. Just like same-sex unions, these relationships are consensual and involve sharing mutual feelings of love and affection. If sex is just about expressions of love and the generation of pleasure, then there is no principled reason to say it’s wrong to have more than one spouse. In fact, a U.S. district court agrees, and has recently struck down part of Utah’s anti-polygamy laws at the instigation of the cast of the polyamory-themed show Sister Wives.

Or, consider consensual adult incest. As long as the relationship is consensual and steps are taken to ensure a child with a genetic defect is not created, then the critic who believes sex is just about emotion and pleasure has no principled reason to say this kind of act is wrong. It was truly ironic that the self-identified gay blogger Perez Hilton (a.k.a Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.) made the following comments about a story involving a man who wants to marry his own grandmother: “Ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew!  . . . We feel so dirty and uncomfortable. This is awful . . . We feel sick. And want to cry.”

If I said that about Hilton’s sexual behaviors, I’d be labeled a bigot. However, he and his readers think those same intuitions can be validly used to condemn adult incest. Anyone else see a double standard?

What’s wrong with bestiality?

The issue of bestiality does raise an interesting point. Why is it wrong? Well, it’s unhealthy, you might say. But with the prevalence of STD’s in the U.S., sex among unmarried people isn’t exactly healthy either. Plus, a man could just use a condom to protect himself from any animal-related diseases.

Okay, how about the fact that the animal doesn’t consent to the act, and sex requires consent? The problem with this response is that most people agree it’s okay to eat animals without their consent. That would seem to harm an animal far more than “non-consensual” sex would. If it were okay to eat an animal for dinner, why wouldn’t it be okay for a “zoophile” to take an animal out to dinner and a movie?

And don’t try quoting Leviticus 18:23 to show bestiality is wrong. True, it says, “you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion.” All that proves is that you are an ignorant bigot. You’re against bestiality because the Bible says it’s wrong? The Bible also says its wrong to eat shrimp!

If you simply say bestiality is just “gross” or that humans weren’t meant to have sex with animals, or that sex has something to do with procreation, this also shows you’re a bigot because those same kinds of arguments are used by bigots to say homosexual sex is wrong.

As you can see, if we divorce sex from it’s context of the life-giving act of love between one man and one woman it can lead to some frightful consequences.

How should we respond?

I don’t think it’s wise for people who agree with Robertson to say this is a “free speech issue” (as Sarah Palin has done). The government isn’t trying to silence Robertson, and A&E is a private company that has the right to ditch an employee who is causing them controversy.

We should instead focus our conversations around the question, “What is sex for?” This moves the conversation away from the issue of being bigoted against self-identified gay people and towards the more universal issue of which sex acts are moral and which are not. I recommend J. Budziszewski’s On the Meaning of Sex to learn more about that approach.

We should also condemn real hatred toward homosexuals, such as the Russian actor Ivan Okhlobystin’s recent comments about wanting to burn gays and lesbians in ovens. As Catholics we should promote an atmosphere that affirms all human beings as being valuable in the eyes of God while at the same time promote God’s plan for human beings, including his plan for our sexuality that can be seen in our human natures.

As the Catechism puts it:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (2358)

Join the conversation . . .
Filed under: Apologetics, Sexuality

What do Jael, Judith, and Mary Have in Common?

In today’s post I want to take a quick look at three great heroines of the Bible and see what they have in common.

Blessed Among Women

In the Scriptures we see that there are three women who are called blessed among women: Judith, Ja’el, and Mary. In order we read:

And Uzziah said to her, “O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth (Judith 13:18).

“Most blessed of women be Ja’el (Judges 5:24).

“and [Elizabeth] exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (Luke 1:42).

Wouldn’t it be interesting if these three women had something else in common. Well, as it turns out, they do!

Each crushed the head of the enemy king.

Ja’el

The commander of the Canaanite army, Sisera, was killed by Jae’l's tent peg.

“But Ja’el the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, till it went down into the ground, as he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died” (Judges 4:21).

I love that the author felt it necessary to write “till it went down into the ground.” As if “so he died” weren’t descriptive enough.

Judith

Holofernes, an invading general of Nebuchadnezzar, was killed by Judith’s sword.

She came close to his bed and took hold of the hair of his head, and said, “Give me strength this day, O Lord God of Israel!” And she struck his neck twice with all her might, and severed it from his body. Then she tumbled his body off the bed and pulled down the canopy from the posts; after a moment she went out, and gave Holofernes’ head to her maid, who placed it in her food bag (Judith 13:7-10).

Mary

Satan was crushed by Mary’s son.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15).

Someone might say, “it was Christ, not Mary, who crushed the head of Satan.” I’ve even heard one person suggest that it’s blasphemous to think that anyone other than Christ could crush Satan. This, I think, is an unnecessary distinction. Of course it is God’s doing, but he uses us and our submission to his will to bring it about.

St. Paul, in his letter to the church of Rome writes that “the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” If we can say this of Christians in general, then, I would argue, we can say it of Mary in particular, and to the greatest degree!

It is precisely because of her unique role in salvation history that we can say of her, in a way that we can’t of others, that the God of peace crushed Satan under her feet.

What are your thoughts?
Filed under: Apologetics

Metallica and Holiness

Many people believe, if only implicitly, that to be holy is to be stifled; less free; less themselves.

In other words, they think it’s Hell all the way to Heaven and Heaven all the way to Hell. (read more here).

As Christians, it’s vital that we understand this to be mammothly fallacious!

God is good. he is not holding out on us, as Lucifer suggested to Eve (Gen 3:1-5). He is for us (Rom 8:31). He is love (John 4:8;16)!

The truth is that sin makes us boring.

In the following clip, Metallica’s front man, James Hetfield, explains how this was true in his own life. He doesn’t use the word ‘sin’, and I’m, of course, not implying that Hetfield has had or is any way near having a conversion to Christ, but he does get across the concept I just spoke of, that, to give the twitter version, “Virtue will make you happy. Sin will make you bored.”

What do you think?

Filed under: Uncategorized

God the Fetus and the Mystery of Mary

This woman changed God’s diapers.

Tonight I’ll be giving a talk on the Blessed Virgin Mary entitled, My Mother is a Virgin, in Mesa Arizona.

Learn about the event here.

My hope is that the talk will introduce, or, reintroduce Catholics to their Heavenly Mother.

Since our Lady is on my mind, I thought I would write a post on the mystery of Mary.

Here goes:

“If you want to understand the mother,” writes St. Louis De Montfort, begin by understanding the son.”

Was Jesus God?

Following Demontfort’s advice, then, let us begin with a question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was and is God?

If not, then might rightly suppose that Mary was not all that different from any other mother. (Perhaps you’d find this article interesting).

If you think Jesus was God, then that should give us pause, shouldn’t it?

Let’s reflect upon that.

In 2 Chronicles 2:6, Solomon, who desired to build a temple said:

The house which I am to build will be great, for our God is greater than all gods. but who is able to build him a house, since heaven, even highest heaven, cannot contain him? (2 Chron. 2:6)

So you, since you acknowledge the Divinity of Jesus Christ, must believe that he whom the heavens cannot contain, chose to become contained within the womb of a teenage Jewish girl.

Wow!

You believe that he who is without beginning or end, the creator of all reality outside himself, God almighty, became a zygote; embryo; fetus. God the fetus! Is your mind reeling? It ought to be! (God was a fetus. That’s even stranger than the infant of Prague!)

In the words of St. Louis De Montfort, “This is a great and holy mystery that no one can understand: ‘Let all tongues fall silent.’”

Mary and the Trinity

Allow me to continue with a seeming digression. Suppose you died and went to Heaven. Before being allowed in, God says to you, “who are you?”

I’m “Bill” you respond.

“That’s nice,” says God “But I didn’t ask you your name, I asked you who you are.”

“Er, I’m American?”, You say hesitantly, “My parents were John and Jane Smith.”

“I didn’t ask your nationality, nor did I ask the name of your parents, I asked you who you are. Who are you?”

It seems to me that the answer, at least the one I would give, is ‘I am your son.’ It is my sonship that defines me. I am his. This, incidentally, is why it’s so dangerous to take our identity in what we do, for our worth isn’t found in what we do or how well we do it, but in who we are. His.

Now one significant way Mary differs from every person who ever lived is that she has a unique relationship with each person of the Blessed Trinity.

Not only is she the daughter of God the Father, she’s, is a mysterious way, the spouse of God the Holy Spirit, and she is the Mother of God the son.

Again, “let all tongues fall silent.”

Praise for Mary

Throughout the centuries, many notable figures have said awe-inspiring things of this woman:

Him who the heavens cannot contain, the womb of one woman bore. She ruled our ruler; she carried Him in whom we are; she gave milk to our bread. – St. Augustine

Woman! above all women glorified, Our tainted nature’s solitary boast. – William Wordsworth

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. – Martin Luther

Join the Conversation

What are your thoughts?

What is one of your favorite quotes about the Blessed Mother?

———-

[1] I just know I’ve offended at least one infant of Prague devotee. I don’t mean to offend you, I’ve just always found the devotion, though legitimate, strange.

Filed under: Apologetics

What to do in the Heat of Temptation

Last month I wrote two articles which constituted a 5 Step Battle Plan (Part 1, and Part 2) on how to break free from pornography.

In today’s post I want to talk about what to do in the heat of temptation!

In his book, Treating Pornography Addiction, Dr. Kevin Skinner discusses, what he has dubbed “the pornography highway”.

The basic idea is this, when a person succumbs to pornography two things have happened. 1) There was a moment in time when something made him think of porn, or, instigated his desire to use it, 2) and then he used it. There is, however, according to Dr. Skinner, at least 5 stages in between these two bookends.

These constitute a sort of “highway” which the one who falls to porn travels down. These stages include: 1) Stimulus (or triggers) 2) Emotion. 3) Thought 4) Chemical Response 5) Body Language 6)  Second Thought 7) Behavior.

The Pornography Highway

Let’s look at each of these in more detail. I would recommend that you either get a pen and paper or open up a word document as you read through this post, as I’m going to invite you at each stage to think about how this relates to you, and, at the end of this post, what can be done to reverse—do a u-turn on—the pornography highway.

1. Stimulus (or triggers): that which leads us to think about pornography.

What is that for you? Seeing immodest women (magazines, movies, real life)? Being alone at home with untethered internet access? Reading immodest and unchaste novels?

2. Emotion: We then experience an emotion such as excitement or curiosity.

What emotions do you commonly experience when thinking about the possibility of looking at pornography?

3. Thought: We then entertain thoughts such as: “I wonder what I would find,” and, “Surely one more time won’t hurt.”

What thoughts do you have? What thoughts “justify” or, we might say, “authorize” you looking at porn? Think hard about this and write down your answers. Only you can know what they are.

Here are some thoughts men have shared with me: “Hey I could look at porn.” “It’s just a click away.” “No one’s at home.” “No one has to know.” “I know that I’m eventually going to fall to this, I may as well go ahead and fall, get it out the way so that the temptation will be over and I can repent.”

4. Chemical Response: The next thing that happens is our body is flooded with chemicals which prepare us for what the body is expecting, sexual excitement and orgasm (if you’re unaware of the pharmaceutical lab between your ears, and it’s real ability to produce brain drugs which the brain then becomes addicted to, click here to learn more).

At this point one has picked up such speed along the “pornography highway” that slamming on the breaks and turning back is extremely difficult.

5. Body Language: Sweating of the palms; increased heart rate; erection, etc.

What reactions do you experience?

6. Second Thought: This thought is unlike the first which may seek to justify the initial descent down the pornography highway. This thought is what Dr. Skinner calls “the battle.”

If this step is non-existent, you have no hope. The thoughts at this stage may be thoughts such as, “This is a sin.” “I don’t want to be this type of person.” “If my wife finds out she’ll be crushed. “People depend on me.” “Don’t be a hypocrite!”

What thoughts do you experience at this stage?

7. Behavior: Though one tries to battle the temptation, the battle is too strong and the person ends up looking at pornography.

Take some time to think, if you haven’t already, to reflect slowly and intentionally about your own sequence.

Making the U-Turn

How do we deactivate this sequence? How do we turn around? It seems to me, and I think you’ll agree, it needs to be done before the chemical release, because. as we’ve seen, and as many men and women addicted to pornography attest, once those chemicals get dumped into one’s system it’s extremely difficult to back out.

So, time to write the game-plan. There will be two parts to your game plan. The first part will concern how you will avoid (to whatever extent feasible) those triggers; the second will concern what you will do when you encounter those triggers.

One more thing, try your best not to write what you think you ought to write, or what you’ve heard you ought to do, rather, write what you know will be helpful.

Step 1

How will you avoid your triggers? Another way of asking this question might be, “When am I most vulnerable?” and “how can I avoid that?” Write down at least five ways that you will do this. Make it personal, make it your own.

Some answers might be:

I’m vulnerable when I’m alone at night watching TV.
I’m vulnerable while driving past that strip club on the way home from work.
A trigger for me is being confronted by bikini-clad women while I’m at the beach.
When I go into the gas station and glance at the top shelf of pornography.
I need to Stop reading or watching legitimate (by legitimate I mean perhaps legitimate for others but not for you because it’s a trigger) literature or shows that lead you to think about porn.

Step 2

What five things (ten if you can) will you do when you encounter that trigger?

Some answers may be:

Call a friend, tell him your tempted and ask him to check in in a day or two.
Distract yourself. I’m reminded of the words of St. Alphonsus Liguori who said, “In temptations against chastity, the spiritual masters advise us, not so much to contend with the bad thought, as to turn the mind to some spiritual, or, at least, indifferent object. It is useful to combat other bad thoughts face to face, but not thoughts of impurity.”
Some men have told me that if they encounter a trigger, they won’t use the internet while alone that day, or they wont use it all together.

At any rate, write these 10 things (in total) down and, if you want to follow the advice of Dr. Skinner, read them every day for at least a month.

You can get Dr. Skinner’s amazing book—probably the best I’ve read on porn addiction—here.

Are You Addicted?

Also, if you’re interested, he has a comprehensive (and confidential) survey that you can take for free which will give you an indication as to whether you’re addicted and how addicted you may be.

Filed under: Pornography

Your Husband and Porn

Click image to download free ebook: Your Husband and Porn.

One of the most heart wrenching questions I’m asked about pornography, the one I most dread getting goes something like this: ‘my husband looks at porn, I’m absolutely crushed. What do I do?’

The first thing I tell these women—and to be honest, in the past, have told my wife—’you ought to be crushed! You ought to feel hurt; angry; betrayed. In you were’t, I’d be worried.

Porn is Adultery

Obviously there is a difference between committing adultery and looking at porn. For one, committing adultery isn’t as ready an option as googling “porn” your phone. However there was this one guy who thought that it essentially amounted to the same thing. He said:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28).

Even Dr. Phil (yes, the Dr. Phil) agrees with Jesus on this point. He admits that Internet porn “is not OK behavior.” He says that “It is a perverse and ridiculous intrusion into your relationship. It is an insult, it is disloyal and it is cheating.”

Free eBook

If your husband struggles with pornography please download this free eBook. It’s an awesome Recovery Guide for Wives that will help you begin to answer some of the big questions:

Why does he look at porn?
Is this my fault?
Is our marriage over?

It also offers some practical tips for bringing healing and reconciliation to your relationship:

Communicating productively
Setting boundaries for tough love
Finding intensive counseling to help him stop

Filed under: Pornography