Canonicity; God’s Guidance; Ancient Contraception; Relics; Intercession of Saints

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. 

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 3: Competing Paradigms]

Why I’m still Protestant

Let’s begin with an admission. As a Protestant, it would be nice to have more theological clarity and certainty on some issues. [p. 106]

Yes it would. And if that is the case, then maybe, just maybe, and perhaps God intended for Christians to have more certainty on those topics? And to not have to wonder about so many things because of competing, contradictory denominational claims? For my part, I think the Bible plainly teaches that God intended a profound doctrinal and institutional unity. I lay out the case in my articles critiquing denominationalism (linked in #13).

[D]oes anyone seriously think that Tobit or Bel and the Dragon is the equal of Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs? [p. 107]

More or less the entire early Church (minus a few dissenters like Jerome) thought they were part of the Deuterocanon.

The problem with asking “who decides” [the canon] is that it only pushes the same question back a step: Who decides “who decides”? You decide who decides! A convert to Catholicism decided to make the Magisterium the decider. So the convert is the ultimate decider. [p. 107]

This is the old “infallible regress” argument that I have already dealt with (I won’t keep repeating myself in these critiques). But here’s a few more articles I didn’t link to before:

The Protestant “Non-Quest” for Certainty [3-15-06; abridged and links added on 7-12-20]

Glorying in Uncertainty in Modern Protestantism (Dialogue with a Calvinist) [11-11-09]

Radically Unbiblical Protestant “Quest for Uncertainty” [2-12-14]

It’s a myth in the first place. Jesus decided to make Peter the head (“rock”) of His one “church.” That means central authority, and hierarchical authority (because the other disciples represented the authority of bishops, lesser than the popes, but working together with them). And the system perpetuates itself by apostolic succession (first seen in the disciples choosing Matthias to replace Judas). The individual Catholic isn’t arbitrarily deciding on anything. He or she simply bows to what was demonstrably true from the beginning of the Church, instituted by our Lord Jesus, and described in inspired Scripture in Matthew 16. The Jerusalem Council also demonstrates how this authority was intended to work. It was the early councils and popes — not atomistic individuals taking polls — that decided the extent of the biblical canon.

A charismatic expects that God will give us certainty, clarity, and evidence whenever we need it or ask for it. God will answer all our prayers. He will perform miracles upon request. He will give us a sign. So the charismatic goes the Catholic one better. [p. 108]

That is an uninformed charismatic; on the fringes. I attended charismatic churches as a Protestant and now as a Catholic I am a member of a charismatic parish. I critiqued charismatic excesses and errors as a Protestant early as 40 years ago, when I started doing serious apologetics. And I utilized research from other charismatics who were fighting distortions of the mainstream charismatic body of thought. Once again, it’s the notorious Hays “broad brush”: claiming to be an expert on things he knows little about.

[Chapter 4: Catholic Apologetics]

Why be Catholic?

1. I’m not going to rehash 1 Tim 3:15. I’ve discussed that here: [link] [p. 113]

Yeah, I’ve discussed it many times, too:

1 Timothy 3:15: Sola Scriptura or Visible Church Authority? [10-2-07]

1 Timothy 3:15 = Church Infallibility (vs. Steve Hays) [5-14-20]

I Timothy 3:15 vs. Sola Scriptura & Jason Engwer [10-4-21]

1 Timothy 3:15 = Infallible Church (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [6-3-22]

Turretin, 1 Timothy 3:15, Infallibility, & Eisegesis [8-24-22]

Church = Foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) (vs. L. Banzoli) [2-9-23]

And I’ll guarantee that Hays didn’t address several parts of my argument.

Regarding the Johannine verses [14:26; 16:13]:

i) The promise is made to the Eleven, not to “the Church”.

A Catholic might counter that the promise extends to the successors of the Eleven. If the papacy/Roman episcopate is an extension of the Apostolate, then the promise extends to the papacy/Roman episcope.

ii) Problem is, there’s nothing in these verses, or John’s Gospel generally, or 1-3 John, to warrant that extension. [p. 113]

John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

John 20:21 . . . As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. [the next two verses have Jesus granting them the Holy Spirit and the power to absolve sins]

To my knowledge, early Christian opposition to contraception was inseparable from opposition to abortion because, before modern medical science, it was impossible in principle or practice to separate the two. So that’s obsolete. [p. 114]

To the contrary, the ancients were well aware of the distinction between the two (though many — like Luther and Calvin centuries later — regarded both as “murder”):

There was no lack of birth control in the ancient world. I don’t think that there is any type of contraception known today that was not known in the ancient world: pharmacological, barrier (both chemical and mechanical), coitus interruptus, sodomy, sterilization, etc. For a brief introduction to the subject by the foremost historian of the subject, see John M. Riddle, et al., “Ever Since Eve . . .: Birth Control in the Ancient World”, Archaeology, March/April 1994, pp. 29-35. We really do underestimate the ingenuity of our ancestors. While in the past these were far from always effective or reliable, people kept trying. See John M. Riddle: Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (1992), and Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West (1997).

For centuries, historians paid no attention to ancient accounts that claimed certain plants provided an effective means of birth control. . . . Modern laboratory analysis of various plants [including silphium, asafoetida, seeds of Queen Anne’s lace, pennyroyal, willow, date palm, pomegranate, inter al.], however, gives us reason to believe that the classical potions were effective, and that women in antiquity had more control over their reproductive lives than previously thought. (Riddle, op. cit., p. 30)

There is a consensus in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox churches not in communion with Rome are outside of this consensus:

The propositions constituting a condemnation of contraception are, it will be seen, recurrent. Since the first clear mention of contraception by a Christian theologian, when a harsh third-century moralist accused a pope of encouraging it, the articulated judgment has been the same. In the world of the late Empire known to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, in the Ostrogothic Arles of Bishop Caesarius and the Suevian Braga of Bishop Martin, in the Paris of St. Albert and St. Thomas, in the Renaissance Rome of Sixtus V and the Renaissance Milan of St. Charles Borromeo, in the Naples of St. Alphonsus Liguori and Liege of Charles Billuart, in the Philadelphia of Bishop Kenrick, and in the Bombay of Cardinal Gracias, the teachers of the Church have taught without hestitation or variation that certain acts preventing procreation are gravely sinful. No Catholic theologian has ever taught, ‘Contraception is a good act.’ The teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever. (John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists [1965], p. 6)

The use of contraception was condemned by church fathers. (Contraception: Early Church Teaching, by William Klimon; see much more in this article)

I think the NT does allow for divorce (for desertion and infidelity). [p. 114]

It does not:

Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce [2004]

Nor did the early Church allow it along with remarriage:

Divorce: Early Church Teaching [Oct. 1998]

The counsel of Trent, part 2

[Hays tackles prooftexts for relics (2 Kgs 13:21; Acts 5:15; 19:11-12)]

God can assign a supernatural effect to a natural object. If you tampered with sacred furniture in the tabernacle, there were catastrophic consequences. That, however, creates no presumption that natural objects produce supernatural effects. To the contrary, that’s very rare. [p. 118]

They would only do that if God intervened and wanted them to. And according to the Bible, He certainly does. 2 Kings 13:21 describes a dead man being raised by mere contact with the prophet Elisha’s bones. Acts 5:15 strongly implies that Peter’s shadow could heal people. And Acts 19:11-12 teaches that “handkerchiefs or aprons” that touched Paul’s body healed the sick and caused demons to depart the possessed. If all of these are not proofs of the truthfulness of the Catholic belief in relics, I don’t know what is. Hays can’t defeat them with one of his irrelevant, sophistical faux-distinctions.

None of [these] prooftexts involve a divine command or apostolic command. In the passages in Acts, people take the initiative. They take it upon themselves to do this. [p. 118]

The command aspect is perfectly irrelevant. The fact remains that these inanimate objects connected to holy men and saints and apostles caused miracles to occur. If God didn’t want such an outcome, then the miracles would have been condemned as sorcery or what-not in the passage (or would have never occurred in the first place). But they are not. There is not the slightest hint that these events are unsavory or impermissible. In the Old Testament we see a physical item very similar to a relic, and it’s by God’s command: the bronze serpent:

Numbers 21:8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” [9] So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

So, command or no, God heals through objects. Here’s another example where oil is an instrument of healing:

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Their attitude reflects folk theology. Superstitious belief in sympathetic magic. That things that come in contact with a wonder-worker store magic energy. [p. 118]

Exactly as I anticipated, Hays pulls out the silly “sorcery” card. Again, if these things were examples of that, then the text itself (and/or the apostles) would have condemned it, just as Simon’s desire for what he thought was mere magic powers (by purchasing them!) was roundly condemned (Acts 8:9-24). So Hays’ desperate attempt to evade the obvious falls flat. Readers, decide who has the better case from Scripture!

Problem is, these prooftexts are a double-edged sword. How often are ailing people healed when they make a pilgrimage to a Catholic reliquary? When was the last time a dead person was revived by contact with the relic of a Catholic saint? How often are people healed when the pope’s shadow falls on their sickbed? Why doesn’t the pope empty the Gemelli of patients by paying a visit every so often to cast his healing shadow on the patients? [pp. 118-119]

This is the old David Hume-like trick or sophistry that “reasons” as follows: “if a supernatural event is very rare, we ought not to believe that it can ever happen, or ever be in God’s will.” Rarity doesn’t disprove the possibility and actuality of miracles. Frequency is another topic altogether.

[H]e [Trent Horn] justifies the intercession of the saints by asserting the possibility that the saints are aware of what’s happening to us. But there are basic problems with that appeal:

i) It’s possible that an anonymous benefactor will bail me out if I go into debt. Indeed, anonymous benefactors actually exist. Would it therefore be prudent for me to go into debt, in the expectation that an anonymous benefactor will cover my expenses? It’s possible that if I forego cancer therapy, my cancer will undergo spontaneous remission. Indeed, that happens every so often. Would it therefore be prudent for me to forego cancer therapy in the expectation that my cancer will undergo spontaneous remission?

The fact that we can’t eliminate a possibility isn’t justification to count on that possibility being a reality or probability. That’s dangerous make-believe and wishful thinking. [p. 119]

I think Trent made a much weaker argument than he could have in this instance. It’s not just a guess. We know they are aware of earthly events, and we do from inspired revelation: Hebrews 12:1. Here is what I wrote about that passage in my 2004 book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (pp. 141-142):

Hebrews 12:1: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,”

Catholics believe that the saints in heaven are aware of happenings on the earth. They are not isolated and removed from earthly realities, but intimately involved in them, as Hebrews 12:1 strongly suggests. Witnesses is the Greek word martus, from which is derived the English word martyr. The reputable Protestant Greek scholars Marvin Vincent and A. T. Robertson comment on this verse as follows:

[T]he idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer’s picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith . . . watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid (Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, IV, 536).

“Cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) . . . The metaphor refers to the great amphitheatre with the arena for the runners and the tiers upon tiers of seats rising up like a cloud. The martures here are not mere spectators (theatai), but testifiers (witnesses) who testify from their own experience (11:2, 4-5, 33, 39) to God’s fulfilling promises as shown in chapter 11 (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, V, 432).

This completely defeats Hays’ reply because his premise is wrong (so was Trent’s, for that matter).

While it’s possible for God to reveal my situation to a “saint”, there are built-in limitations to what a saint can know. To be a creature is to be finite. Even an omnipotent God is restricted by the medium if he works through a natural medium. That’s a self-imposed limitation. God can often circumvent a natural medium. But if God is working through human beings, then there are things that an omnipotent being can’t do via that medium. [p. 119]

I’ve already addressed how God can cause saints to be out of time when they are in heaven; no problem at all. Even in the natural world, people can be in different time-frames if one travels at the speed of light for a while (Einstein’s theory of relativity). 1 John 1:3 states that “we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him . . .” “Like” God? One way we could be more like Him is for God to give us the ability to be aware of the earth after we die, due in large part to being outside of time, as He is.

There’s no reason to think the Virgin Mary can simultaneously process millions of prayers in hundreds of foreign languages. That’s inhumane. [p. 119]

Yeah? How so? God can make us learn different languages or understand languages we don’t know. He did that with the gift of tongues in the book of Acts.

Invoking divine omnipotence doesn’t solve the problem, since there’s an upper limit on what it means to be human. [p. 119]

Being outside of time is within the range of possibilities for humans. It doesn’t involve us being omniscient or omnipotent; just outside of time!

Assuming the departed can intercede for us, [p. 119]

That’s not even much of an assumption. If they have a “lively interest and sympathy” in us, and lend “heavenly aid”: as Presbyterian linguist Marvin Vincent has stated, then that directly ties into the possibility of praying for us.

the obvious candidate wouldn’t be a Christian who lived and died long before we were born, but a dead relative who knows who we are. [p. 119]

That doesn’t follow if the saints in heaven are much increased in knowledge as well as charity. Hays thinks in purely human terms, but we’re talking about heaven, and how saints will be transformed there:

1 Corinthians 2:9, 11 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” . . . [11] . . . So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

By contrast, the efficacy of evangelical intercessory prayer isn’t based on the merit of the prayer partners. The only merit is the merit of Christ. [p. 120]

That’s not biblical teaching. The most obvious example of merit affecting prayer is James 5:16-18:

. . . The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. [17] Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

But there is much, much more than that. I compiled as much as I could find in these papers of mine: Bible on Praying Straight to God (vs. Lucas Banzoli) [9-21-22] and Why the Bible Says the Prayers of Holy People Are More Powerful [National Catholic Register, 3-19-19].

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

Catholic Miracles Unfairly Criticized & Biblically Defended; St. Padre Pio; St. Joseph Cupertino

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 1: Miracles]

Parsing Catholic miracles

[T]e Martyrdom of Polycarp says he was fireproof when the Romans tried to burn him alive. Assuming that’s true, should that be classified as a Catholic miracle? [p. 16]

Yes.

Was Polycarp Roman Catholic? [p. 16]

Yes, of course.

Or is that an anachronistic designation? [p. 16]

Not at all. He was a member of the one true Church begun by Jesus, under the initial human leadership of St. Peter, and then under his successors to the papal office. That Church is demonstrably historically continuous to this day. Polycarp rejected sola Scriptura and sola fide (faith alone): the two “pillars” of the Protestant Revolution. He regarded Tobit, the Didache, and Ecclesiasticus as Holy Scripture. That’s either being simply a “Catholic” (as I would contend) or (as it seems anyone is obliged to hold) at the very least more Catholic than proto-“Protestant”, since he denied the two pillars which supposedly sum up the main tenets and distinctives of the Protestant revolt, which had to wait until 1362 years after his death.

He wasn’t Catholic in the sense that Ignatius Loyola was Catholic, or Matthias Joseph Scheeben–much less Joseph Ratzinger. [p. 16]

Of course he wasn’t. He lived in the first and second centuries. I could turn it around and say that “Hays wasn’t a Calvinist in the sense that John Calvin was a Calvinist.” But he was still a Calvinist! All those hundreds of years since Polycarp saw much development of doctrine and practice. That’s why he is different from the later figures, but it’s not an essential difference. It’s the difference between an acorn and an oak tree: the former develops inexorably into the latter, and the DNA was the same all along. The acorn is an oak tree in the making, or a “very young” oak tree, as it were.

Consider the cult of Padre Pio. There’s evidence that he used carbonic acid. If so, his stigmata might be the result of self-mutilation. [p. 17]

Prove it, then! Put your money where your mouth is! This is the constant unethical method of anti-Catholic polemicists: to throw out a serious charge but not to take enough time to document it and make the case on the grounds of factuality and plausibility: just as in any other form of honest research. Failing that, it’s simply gossip and rumormongering, which is clearly unethical. Some people will read something like this and never forget it, and never look into it to verify or disprove it. And if it’s false, it was bearing false witness on Hays’ part: a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

Readers may wish to read a favorable report of St. Pio’s stigmata, and when they began. The date was September 20, 1918. The scurrilous claim is that St. Pio asked for the acid in the “summer of 1919,” some 9-10 months after his stigmata began. The acid could hardly have caused [what would then merely mimic] the stigmata, let alone promulgate a complete fakery. False accusations against St. Padre Pio (like those against Jesus and Paul) are nothing new.

Saints are often persecuted not only by anti-Catholics, but (sadly) by those in the Church. The Holy See in 1931 ordered St. Padre Pio to cease public ministry and offering Mass in public, cease hearing confessions, and to not make any public appearances. He was also accused by some of insanity and fraud. In 1960, the Vatican again restricted his public ministry based on the notion that his popularity had gotten out of control. In that year, one Fr. Carlo Maccari accused the 73-year-old Padre Pio of having sex with female penitents “twice a week.” Fr. Maccari later admitted that he had lied and asked for forgiveness in a public recantation on his deathbed in 1961. St. Pio’s stigmata wounds completely vanished three days before he died.

In principle, some eucharistic miracles might be staged. A homemade communion wafer with ingredients designed to have a chemical reaction that simulates blood when immersed in wine. Or actual human blood could be one of the ingredients. [p. 17]

Yes, maybe so. But this proves absolutely nothing with regard to purported miracles of this sort that produced verified human blood and had strict controls against manipulation by unscrupulous folks. The presence of a counterfeit dollar bill doesn’t disprove all genuine dollar bills. This is not an argument. It’s simply a statement of the obvious truism that there are people out there who may try to fake miracles for a thrill or money or anti-Catholic motives; on a dare, whatever!

The miracles attributed to St. Joseph Copertino include levitation, psychokinesis, poltergeist activity, and materialization of objects. Even if genuine, there’s nothing specifically Christian about that phenomena. . . . there’s nothing specifically divine about such phenomena. If genuine, it’s more like a supernatural stunt. They fail to exhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth. We’d expect a divine miracle to have a certain dignity or fittingness. Not just be something weird or frivolous. From what I’ve read, there’s a connection between possession and levitation. [pp. 17-18]

This is a rather bizarre argument. How is “materialization of objects” different in essence from Jesus multiplying the loaves and the fish? Did not Jesus materialize those two things, in abundance? Was that miracle not “specifically Christian”? Was it not “divine”: having been done by the express will of Jesus, Who is God? Should it be properly described as a “supernatural stunt”? What in the world was Hays thinking here? Or was he not thinking at all when he made the charges, in his ever-present prejudice against Catholicism? Did the feeding of the five and four thousand not “exhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth”? Did it lack “dignity” and “fittingness”? Was it “weird or frivolous”? Talk about rhetorical overkill! We’re gonna see it a lot, believe me, folks, as I go through this book. All of these terms, by direct analogy, would apply to the two feeding miracle-events. Thus, Hay’s argument collapses in a spectacular reductio ad absurdum.

The same reductio amply applies to his bashing of “levitation” as well (which he associates — obviously “poisoning the well” — with “possession”: a nice touch there). That involves a person going up into the air in a supernatural fashion. Elijah did that (with the extra spectacle of a chariot and fire). Our Lord Jesus ascended (I visited the spot in 2014). At the Second Coming, millions of the elect will be “caught up . . . in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess 4:17). The “two witnesses” of Revelation (11:3) were dead, but then “a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up hither!’ And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud” (Revelation 11:11-12).

That’s four scriptural instances of “ascensions” of one sort or another. Certainly these events were more lacking in “dignity” and “fittingness” and “weird or frivolous” than mere levitation, which is a very small analogy to an ascension. Therefore, if instances of levitation are regarded in this hostile fashion, how is it that the four biblical ascensions are not? What is the big difference? Well, the only one that is worth mentioning is that the one thing is said to be specifically “Catholic” and the others aren’t. Therefore, the scorn and derision is heaped on the Catholic miracle, with complete hypocrisy and a double standard (certainly not utilizing reason). When severe bias is always in the picture, this is the sort of incoherent “reasoning” we see. It’s equal parts pitiful and pathetic.

Moreover, “psychokinesis” is the moving of objects by mental activity alone. We have no problem finding many biblical parallels to this, too: Jesus calming the waves and the storm, and causing Lazarus to be raised and to walk out of his tomb, and legs suddenly being able to walk, the stone in front of Jesus’ tomb moving away from the entrance, etc. This means that all the name-calling that Hays made about this and the other “Catholic” miracles should consistently be applied to the analogous biblical events that are even more dramatic and unusual.

As for “poltergeist activity” (noisy or frivolous ghosts), Scripture is filled with that, too, or at least things highly akin or similar. We have Samuel the prophet (not an impersonating demon!, as some claim) appearing to Saul, Moses and Elijah appearing and talking to Jesus at His transfiguration, the two witnesses of Revelation 11, “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep” who “were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Mt 27:52-53). We have Jesus in effect walking through a wall to appear to His disciples after His resurrection. He eats fish with them. He closes the eyes of witnesses Mary Magdalene and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, then reveals to them His identity. We have an angel wrestling with Jacob. Are all these phenomena “weird or frivolous” and all the other nonsense that Hays spews about Catholic miracles?

I have provided biblical analogies for all four things he brought up. His rather weak and insubstantial “argument” has now been utterly demolished and pulverized, if I do say so.

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

Asking Patron Saints to Intercede; Miracles Among Catholics & Protestants 

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — which appears to simply be a collection of his articles on his site — has graciously been made available there for free. This is one of many planned critiques of that book. Rather than list them all in individual sections, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 1: Miracles]

Anthony, don’t pray for me [p. 11: subtitle]

[Francis] Beckwith prays to the patron saint of cancer patients on behalf of a cancer patient, who nevertheless dies shortly thereafter. How does that validate St. Anthony’s reputation as a long-distance healer? If the patient was cured, that would be impressive. But since the patient succumbed, that hardly furnishes supporting evidence for Anthony’s reputation. [p. 11]

Unanswered prayer no more disproves the practice of asking patron saints to intercede to God than it disproves prayer to God Himself when He says “no.” And that’s because God may always will not to answer a prayer, for reasons usually known to Him alone. This is an explicitly biblical doctrine:

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.

James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.

James 1:7-8 For that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord.

James 5:16 . . . The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Psalm 66:18 If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Isaiah 1:15 When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. (cf. Jer 11:11)

Isaiah 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.

Even St. Paul’s petitionary prayer request was expressly turned down by God:

2 Corinthians 12:7-9 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. [8] Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; [9] but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

The prophet Jonah prayed to God to die (Jonah 4:3): “Therefore now, O LORD, take my life from me, I beseech thee, for it is better for me to die than to live.” (cf. 4:8-9). God obviously didn’t fulfill the request, and chided Jonah or his anger (4:4, 9). The prophet Ezekiel did the same: “O LORD, take away my life” (1 Kgs 19:4). God had other plans, as the entire passage shows. If we pray something stupidly, God won’t answer. He knows better than we do.

Jesus also tells the story (not a parable, which don’t have proper names) in Luke 16 of Lazarus and the rich man, in which two petitionary requests (in effect, prayers: 16:24, 27-28, 30) to Abraham are turned down (16:25-26, 29, 31). Since Jesus is teaching theological principles or truths, by means of the story, then it follows that it’s His own opinion as well: that prayers are not always answered. They have to be according to God’s will.

It’s like “evidence” for global warming. If there’s a warming trend, that’s evidence for global warming–but if there’s a cooling trend, that’s consistent with global warming. Whether it’s wetter or drier, that’s evidence for global warming. If either outcome is consistent with St. Anthony’s reputation, then does anything really count as evidence for or against his reputation? Or is it just random? [p. 11]

The attempted analogy doesn’t apply here because of the important and central additional factor of prayer being conditional upon it being God’s will, just explained.

v) Assuming (ex hypothesi) that it’s a miracle, what kind of miracle would it be? Not like turning water into wine or the multiplication of food. Rather, this would be a coincidence miracle. A result of God’s extraordinary providence.

That, however, is very predestinarian. That assumes God prearranged ordinary circumstances to converge on this opportune and naturally improbable outcome. If so, that’s inconsistent with the libertarian strand of Catholic theology (e.g. Jesuit theologians). [p. 11]

This is another caricature of Catholic theology. We believe in God’s providence as much as any Calvinist does, and we believe in the predestination of the elect and of whatever events God chooses to be predestined. Where we disagree is over the predestination of the damned. We deny that; Calvinists affirm it. Nor is predestination in the slightest incompatible with Jesuit theology (Molinism and suchlike: which happens to be my own view). Jesuits, being Catholics, accept predestination like the Thomists and any other Catholics. They simply have a different view of its implementation or operation by God and precisely how human free will is related to it.

vi) Assuming (ex hypothesi) that it’s a miracle, does it validate the cult of the saints? [p. 11]

If it happens enough times, yes, just as in the case of any other miracle. It validates and suggests this, while not absolutely proving it.

Not unless you think the only function of a miracle is to attest doctrine. Moreover, that’s offset by Protestant miracles. [p. 11]

That’s neither here nor there. If something happens enough times, and suggests that “x caused miracle y,” then that is cumulative evidence for x indeed being the cause or a contributing cause of y. Protestants experience miracles because they are incorporated into the Body of Christ by virtue of the regeneration of their baptism, which is a true sacrament. So declared Trent (i.e., this is nothing new).

Again, prayers of this sort (distinctively Catholic prayers) are substantiated to the extent that they appear to be answered again and again: precisely as with prayers directly to God. It’s difficult to absolutely prove anything regarding prayer, but we can only look to patterns in cause and effect, suggesting “success” or “failure.” Atheists reject all Christian prayers; anti-Catholics take a very dim — if not outright hostile — view of Catholic prayers. What else is new?

Ecclesiastical miracles [p. 15: subtitle]

Unlike the schismatic Protestant sect, Rome is verifiably the one true church because she enjoys miraculous attestation. So goes the argument. One problem with this claim–a problem which has become more manifest since the Reformation–is the fact that Rome doesn’t enjoy a monopoly on reported miracles. There are reported Protestant miracles as well as reported Catholic miracles. Therefore, even if we grant for the sake of argument that Catholicism enjoys prima facie miraculous evidence, the same holds true for Protestantism. [p. 15]

What Hays doesn’t do is comment on the relative numbers of miracles. I contend that we experience many more, relative to Protestantism (and we freely acknowledge that miracles occur among Protestants, as already alluded to). It helps us to have more miracles, seeing that many Protestants don’t even believe that they occur anymore, either due to lack of faith and a full belief or false and unbiblical theological premises regarding miracles (cessationism or Hays’ own semicessationism).

Catholics even have many entire categories of miracles that we believe in, whereas most Protestants don’t: such as exorcisms (discussed in reply #1), incorruptible bodies of saints (a phenomenon that Protestants have the most difficult time trying to explain, leading most of them to simply avoid the topic like the plague), weeping statues of Mary, eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, the stigmata, living on the Eucharist alone, levitation, bilocation, etc. We even believe in ghosts, unlike a great many Protestants, who collapse all such occurrences to the horrible and utterly forbidden occult, seances, sorcery, necromancy, etc.

C. S. Lewis (quite Protestant) wrote about seeing the ghost of his wife, Joy, in his book, A Grief Observed. He didn’t feel the need to rationalize this away as a demon impersonating her, etc. Several incidents in the Bible involve dead people coming back to earth (e.g., the prophet Samuel, the two witnesses of Revelation, those who come out of their tombs after the crucifixion, Elijah and Moses at the Transfiguration, etc.).

My point is not to vouch for any particular claim, but just to make the fairly obvious observation that this fixture of the traditional apologetic for Roman Catholicism now backfires. We can call your reputed miracles and raise you. [p. 15]

Not at all, as just explained. Our claims for miracles never had anything to do with whether Protestants also have miracles in their midst. Baptismal regeneration is a miracle, so is initial justification and being filled with the Holy Spirit and the sacrament of matrimony: things that happen to Protestants by the hundreds of millions. It’s a non-issue for us. But if we want to talk about quantities of miracles and many more categories of them, Catholics “win” hands down.

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

6-10,000-Year-Old Universe (?); “Myths” in Genesis; Straw Men; Protestant Scholarly “Authorities”; Exorcism; Symbolic Interpretation of Scripture

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — which appears to simply be a collection of his articles on his site — has graciously been made available there for free. This is one of many planned critiques of that book. Rather than list them all in individual sections, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 1: Miracles]

Speaking for myself, I rarely attended Sunday school as a kid. I wasn’t raised on a cartoon version of the flood narrative. Likewise, many people come to the Christian faith as adults. They had no Christian upbringing. [p. 5]

It should be noted, however (speaking of “cartoon” versions of things), that Hays was a young-earther: typically a position held by biblical fundamentalists. In a post called “Dawkins Postmortem” (10-22-06), he wrote: “The universe is between 6000-10,000 years old, give or take.” He noted that he held this view “with certain qualifications” but they are not such as to change the essential position. Note that I am not asserting that he himself was a fundamentalist, based on this consideration alone; only that it is in fact held mostly by biblical fundamentalists, who interpret the Bible much more literally than most reputable Bible scholars among all the various sorts of Christians. Hays was operating within a certain paradigm, at any rate — whatever it was –, as we all do.

The origin of Jericho as an established city has been dated to 8,000 BC (many scholars regard it as the oldest city in the world): at which time it already had “a massive stone wall around the settlement, strengthened at one point at least by a massive stone tower” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Jericho”). That would mean that it was in place at about the same time that Hays thinks (if we adopt his older date) the entire universe began. And there were developments of the city (“a long period of settlement”) up to a thousand years before the universe began, according to Hays: quite a feat!

Catholic Cognitive Dissonance [p. 5: subtitle]

Citing a Catholic who referred to “biblical literalists,” Hays polemically shot back with, “Well, Catholics are literalists when it comes to the Bread of Life discourse (John 6).” [p. 5] Yes, quite true. The issue in such matters is whether it is warranted to interpret a text literally or symbolically, allegorically, or as an example of hyperbole and many other non-literal forms of expression that are found throughout the Bible. The exegete needs to determine the literary nature of any given biblical text. I’ve written at length about how there are insuperable exegetical problems if one interprets John 6 (i.e., the second part of it) non-literally. See, for example: John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09].

Hays noted the words of Ven. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis [1950], about the book of Genesis, and immediately set out to caricature the pope’s words and to distort his actual thoughts and intentions (something, sadly, that he habitually did in his apologetics, as I will show time and again in this series):

i) To say Gen 1-11 is metaphorical rather than historical is a rearguard action. That reflects the triumph of modernism in contemporary Catholicism. It’s certainly not the traditional view of Gen 1-11. [p. 7]

But of course, Pius XII didn’t express this heretical notion in the first place (one notes that Hays didn’t document him actually doing this). Pius XII and the Church herself are very clear about this: the early chapters of Genesis are historical in nature, but expressed in a semi-mythical, very primitive literary form, that we know little about. Pope Pius XII wrote in this Encyclical:

[T]he first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, . . . (38; my italics and bolding)

Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers. (39; my italics and bolding)

So we have what a pope actually expressed, then we see how Hays twisted and distorted it, so that he could set forth a straw man mythical version (here’s where the true myth lies!) of what the Catholic Church teaches. The first task of the honest researcher, on the other hand, is to accurately document what his or her opponent’s position is. The above distortions of our beliefs are simply not honest. Hays was too sharp of a guy to be that ignorant. This was deliberate distortion. A sentient being with brain cells and a rudimentary understanding of logic and grammar (and a sense of fair play and intellectual honesty) can’t possibly read Pius XII’s words in Humani Generis and summarize them as expressing the notion that “Gen[esis] 1-11 is metaphorical rather than historical.”

ii) Scholars who deny the historicity of Gen 1-11, or treat it as metaphorical, don’t suddenly view the rest of the Pentateuch as historical. Scholars who take that view of Gen 1-11 don’t think the patriarchal narratives, or Exodus, or wilderness account, constitute a record of human experiences in living memory, based directly on eyewitness testimony, interviews with eyewitnesses. [p. 7]

I agree. These are the liberal dissidents and dissenters that all Christian communions are “blessed” with. The difference in the Catholic Church is that we have an authoritative magisterium (pope and ecumenical councils) that can resolve theological issues and controversies once and for all. Protestants (and even Orthodox) have no such thing. All they can do is take head count of scholars, which accomplishes nothing and is a form of the ad populum fallacy (“lots of folks — and the smart people — believe x, therefore x must be true”).

Hays, quite often, trots out names of the “usual suspect” Catholic liberal dissidents and presents their views, as if they reflect actual Catholic defined, magisterial teaching. They do not. Catholic scholars are not our authorities in the way that Protestant scholars function, as an ersatz “authority” in Protestantism. And the latter do that because they have to “fill” the void left by the Protestant institutional and theological rejection of ecumenical councils and the papacy and authoritative apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, and they can’t possibly do so. The strong Protestant tendency (easily demonstrated from the sad history of their endless denominations) is for these scholars to keep getting more and more anti-traditional and theologically liberal (even in the Protestant sense) and for entire denominations to follow their lead and walk right over the cliff.

Hays at this point switched on a dime and started discussing Catholic Mariology (anti-Catholics generally are notorious for irrational and/or deliberately evasive topic-switching), exorcism and Catholic belief in the Real, Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Why not interpret “Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth” as mythical or metaphorical language? [p. 8]

Because it was part and parcel of the miracle of the virgin birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We believe that He was so special (as God the Son and God Incarnate that even the birth process itself was miraculous in a unique way. When God the Son is being born, that is an event unique in the history of the world: a one-time event that will never happen again. And we believe that this was entirely proper and “fitting.”
Recently I made a biblical study of the latter concept, that is often mocked by Protestants.

Why not interpret demonic possession and exorcism as an archaic way of expressing a deeper content? [p. 8]

Simply because demons are very real and harmful creatures, just as the devil is. Catholics believe in these things, which is why we are virtually the only Christians to take exorcism seriously: something that inexorably follows from Jesus actually commanding the disciples to “cast out demons” (Mt 10:8; Mk 3:15; 16:17). After following Jesus’ orders, the disciples exclaimed like good little exorcists: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” (Lk 10:17). Yes they are.

But Hays (on p. 41) calls his own view “semicessationist”: meaning that “God now works miracles directly or individually, rather than working through an official intermediary (e.g. apostle, prophet, healer).” It follows logically that no Christian today can exercise the prerogative that Catholic exorcists do: to cast out demons. Only God can do that. The problem is that this novel idea is a mere “Protestant tradition of men” that isn’t found in the Bible anywhere, which explains why Hays never attempts to defend it from the Bible, in his discussion of it on pages 40-42.

Instead, he disagrees with another Protestant tradition of men from a fellow Calvinist: good ol’ Benjamin Warfield’s even more extreme complete cessationism. And so he continues the proud Protestant tradition of never-ending internal dissension (that can never be decisively resolved within their rule of faith and worldview), while we seek to follow our Lord’s express injunctions in Holy Scripture and help poor souls to be freed from horrific demonic possession. Which is more biblical: dissensions that are roundly condemned by Paul ten times or more, or liberating human beings from oppressing and possessing demons? Which pleases God more? Which is more loving and Christlike?

Why not interpret the claim that “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in a wafer as mythical or metaphorical? [p. 8]

Because the exegesis of John 6 doesn’t logically or theologically permit such an interpretation, as I explained in an article linked above. The symbolic standpoint is utterly incoherent and self-defeating.

Why not treat the Assumption of Mary as a metaphor? [p. 8]

Because if in fact the Blessed Virgin Mary was granted an entirely unmerited, gratuitous gift by God of being without original sin, then the absence of bodily decay after death (which came from original sin) leads logically to an immediate bodily resurrection, graphically expressed by her being bodily assumed into heaven.

Why not treat Marian apparitions like Fatima as mythical or metaphorical? [p. 8]

Because there were eyewitnesses of the apparitions, and associated miracles (like the miracle of the sun), and healings: none of which are merely mythical or metaphorical; they’re quite real, just as witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection experienced real, tangible events (with Thomas even touching Jesus’ physical wounds), and Jesus eating fish after His resurrection.

Devout Catholic intellectuals are by turns skeptical and superstitious. Rationalistic and fideistic. [p. 8]

This is sheer nonsense (complete with one of Hays’ trademark incomplete sentences), as just shown. The orthodox Catholic exercises faith, as all Christians do and must, but it’s a rational faith, based in part on evidences from reason, not a blind faith.

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.