First Things First – Be Catholic, and Be Ready to Fail Don’t water down, minimize or rationalize Catholic doctrine or practices. Don’t be obnoxious about it either. If questions come up, answer them. If your friend doesn’t like the answer, you can discuss further, but in the end you may have to agree to disagree. People walked away from Jesus and even put Him to death for what He was saying. Peter and Paul were beaten and executed for their faith. Don’t expect that you’ll do better.

Second Things Second – Know your audience In my experience, most of the aggravation that people have over the Catholic Church is emotional. People have a bad experience with “the Church”, either with a priest a nun or other Catholics who were jerks. Giving a dry theology or philosophy course isn’t going to help and may actually hurt things. Now not only are Catholics jerks, but they are hypocrites because they say one thing and do another. Sometimes the best you can do is give your own testimony: Why are you Catholic? What does it mean to you? What would it mean to you if you didn’t have access to the sacraments for whatever reason? Your testimony may have no immediate impact, but it may plant a seed.

On the other hand, when people are not hindered by emotions, they they likely will want the theology and philosophy. They may react very strongly to that. They commonly feel that they are looking at the world in a whole new way, and it’s exciting. In that case, giving an emotional testimony won’t really help.

Third things third – Know the faith. It’s important to know why the Church teaches what she teaches. Today, with everything online and freely available with a simple internet search, there is NO excuse for not knowing it. It’s important to know the source documents because in today’s sound­bite driven culture, you may know a few one­liners about a given topic, but if someone probes for more information, or has a good one­liner of his own that you’re not ready for, you’re a bit stuck. Now you have to explain your anecdote or sound bite and may end up going off in some direction that the Church doesn’t actually teach (we’ll see more about that with the issue of women’s ordination).

Fourth things fourth – make the faith your own. Although it’s important to know the Church documents, I don’t think it’s helpful to quote them. Your friend probably doesn’t know what a “Vatican II” is or who the “CDF” is or the relationship between a bishop and a bishop’s conference (does Bishop Farrell work for the USCCB?). It will take you hours to explain all that, and then you have to explain the original issue. I’m going to have a lot of references in this talk because I want you to have the documents to refer to, and you can direct your friend to the documents if they want more info, but as the first step, use your own words, even if you got them from the Vatican.

The second issue is that non­Catholics often think that Catholics don’t think for themselves, and

1

quoting the Pope all the time reinforces that impression. It’s unfair: you won’t get ridiculed by repeating something your history teacher taught you, but you may get ridiculed for repeating something your bishop taught you. But there it is.

Finally, the official Church documents are dull and may not hold your friend’s interest. You’ll have to summarize them and convince your friend that they are worth the effort to read.

Magisterium So let’s start with objections to the Pope and the Magisterium. Most of the controversy in the Church comes about because people either don’t understand the Magisterium, or they understand it and don’t like it. In many of the tough conversations, saying “I believe this because the Church says so” is an acceptable response. It may not be a convincing response, but it’s acceptable. The magisterium generally does explain its reasoning for the beliefs it holds and so it does help to read those documents and offer those arguments when necessary, but as Catholics we trust in the Magisterium’s judgement.

The most controversial aspect is that of infallibility. First, let’s look at what infallibility is.

The doctrine of infallibility is that the Church, when speaking on matters of faith and morals, is protected from error. Let’s take a look at how this works with a couple of examples.

In the late 1500’s, Pope Sixtus V wanted to revise the Latin Vulgate. This was after the printing press had made the Bible widely available and after the Protestant Reformation which attacked the Church’s ability to preserve and interpret the Bible. There were, in fact, several versions of the Vulgate in circulation and some had accumulated copyist and scribe errors (“typos” in today’s parlance), so successive Popes had tried to correct the Vulgate. Frustrated with slow progress, Sixtus V himself decided to take on the project and in a relatively short time produced a Bible that was even worse than what was currently in circulation. It was full of errors and missing passages and would have made the Catholic Church a laughing stock, especially given the general attacks on the Church’s claim that it was the sole interpreter of scripture.

Sixtus V never released that Bible. He was ready to do so and had started printing copies of it, but shortly before he promulgated the Bible and his Bull directing it’s use, he died. His successor quietly retrieved all the copies that had been printed, had them destroyed, corrected the errors and published the updated Bible in 1592. That’s an extreme example of the Pope being prevented from teaching error!

Here’s another example. Prior to declaring the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII had written an encyclical called Deiparae Virginis Mariae in which he raised the possibility of declaring this dogma. He cited support from the council fathers in Vatican I as well as popular support from the faithful. In the encyclical, he asked the Bishops throughout the world whether they would assent to declaring the Assumption to be a dogma of the Church. The response was nearly unanimous, so four years later he issued the encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, establishing

2

the dogma of the Assumption.

This is a slow deliberative process. While you might characterize Sixtus V’s actions as impatient and even as the arbitrary actions of someone accustomed to authority, Pius XII is the model of restraint and deliberation. Even the dogmatic text leaves open the question of whether Mary died prior to the Assumption because there’s insufficient evidence from scripture or the Church Fathers to make a definitive statement.

Here’s Scott Hahn’s take:

“...when our nation’s founders gave us the Constitution, they didn’t leave it at that. Can you imagine what we’d have today if all they had given us was a document, as good as it is, along with a charge like ‘May the spirit of Washington guide each and every citizen’? We’d have anarchy—which is basically what we Protestants do have when it comes to church unity. Instead, our founding fathers gave us something besides the Constitution; they gave us a government—made up of a President, Congress and a Supreme Court—all of which are needed to administer and interpret the Constitution, And if that’s just enough to govern a country like ours, what would it take to govern a worldwide Church? “That’s why, personally, Dr. Gerstner, I’m beginning to think that Christ didn’t leave us with just a book and his Spirit. In fact, he never mentions a thing about writing to his apostles anywhere in the Gospels; besides, fewer than half of them even wrote books that were included in the New Testament. What Christ did say—to Peter—was, ‘Upon this rock, I will build my Church. . . , and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.’ So it makes more sense to me that Jesus left us with his Church—made up of a Pope, bishops and councils—all of which are needed to administer and interpret Scripture.”

Hahn, Kimberly; Scott Hahn (2009­12­07). Rome Sweet Home (pp. 73­74). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Another example from the same book: God made Peter infallible at least long enough to write 1 Peter. He similarly bestowed infallibility to the rest of the authors in the Bible. Why can’t He bestow infallibility to Peter’s successor when speaking on matters of faith and morals?

Most people accept the idea that a Church, or even any secular organization, needs to have authority and structure. We’re comfortable with law and order and enforcement of regulations. Furthermore, it seems reasonable that Jesus would see to it that His Church would have some method by which the Gospel could be applied to ever changing situations and cultures. The Gospel message as delivered in First Century Palestine might need some explanation in 21st Century America. What people get upset about is who sets the laws and who enforces them, and whether they are fit for the task. We see the foolish behavior of our Bishops and wonder: are these people really fit to speak for God? Because that’s what we’re saying: when the Church pronounces on some issue of faith and morals, it is speaking for God Himself. Can such error­prone people speak without error? Godwin’s law, and its corollary Anderson’s Law is sure to be invoked. It’s the price we have to pay: God is punishing us for our decadent lifestyle.

And yet, that’s what we read in the Gospel. Jesus directed the crowds to obey the Pharisees on

3

account of their position, a group that He held in rather low esteem. Jesus hand­selected twelve people to be his apostles, one of which would sell Him out, another of which would deny knowing Him, another of which would deny the Resurrection until shown physical proof. And yet Jesus didn’t give up on them, He didn’t throw them out and select better or wiser men. These were the people that Jesus empowered to preach to all nations. It’s unreasonable to think that their successors would not have the same faults that the Twelve had.

When Paul was personally commissioned by Jesus to preach the gospel, he did not see himself in opposition to the Jesus’ original apostles. He instead clearly saw himself as a member of the same church, and subject to their authority.

I heard a Tim Staples say a great line one time: you don’t give up on Peter because of Judas. That’s a great line, but it’s a bit of a misdirection. We don’t believe that Peter was exceptionally faithful or intelligent. The Gospel evidence runs clearly in the other direction. However, we do believe that the Holy Spirit guided Peter and continues to guide his successors today.

Mary

From GK Chesterton’s Everlasting Man

If the world wanted what is called a non­controversial aspect of Christianity, it would probably select Christmas. Yet it is obviously bound up with what is supposed to be a controversial aspect (I could never at any stage of my opinions imagine why); the respect paid to the Blessed Virgin. When I was a boy, a more Puritan generation objected to a statue upon my parish church representing the Virgin and Child. After much controversy, they compromised by taking away the Child. One would think that this was even more corrupted with Mariolatry, unless the mother was counted less dangerous when deprived of a sort of weapon. But the practical difficulty is also a parable.

You cannot chip away the statue of a mother from all round that of a newborn child. You cannot suspend the newborn child in mid­air; indeed, you cannot really have a statue of a newborn child at all. Similarly, you cannot suspend the idea of a newborn child in the void or think of him without thinking of his mother. You cannot visit the child without visiting the mother; you cannot in common human life approach the child except through the mother.

Mary is frequently compared to the Moon. It doesn’t shine from it’s own light, but it reflects the light of the Sun. Mary is frequently compared to a fine work of art. If an artist was present at the unveiling of his latest work and people gathered in from of it and admired it and talked to each other about how impressive it was, the artist would not feel slighted, but would swell with pride (the good kind of pride).

Mary leads us to her Son. The last words of Mary in the Bible are “do whatever He tells you” to the servants at the wedding at Cana.

We honor Mary because of that perfect submission to God’s will. She said “Yes” where we’d

4

say “No” or “Not now”. In the Old Testament, there are many stories of people being called by God who demur, or argue or (in the case of Jonah) run in the other direction. Mary didn’t argue. She simply said “Yes”. That’s all she did. The rest is just living an ordinary life. Getting married, the humdrum chores of raising a family, taking part in the ordinary religious observances of the day. In doing so, she brought Jesus to the world. In our own way, we can also bring Jesus to the world if only we obey His will.

Is Mary our Mother? Well, in chapter 12 of Revelation, there’s a battle between a dragon, identified as Satan and a woman who is clearly Mary. When the dragon is repeatedly thwarted in it’s attempt to destroy her, we read that the dragon “went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus”. That’s us! When Jesus spoke from the cross, He spoke to His “beloved disciple” and assigned him to be Mary’s son and Mary to be his mother. The “beloved disciple” is John, but aren’t we beloved disciples as well? In that statement isn’t Jesus establishing Mary as the mother of His Church?

Marriage Gay marriage is all the rage these days. But we are not going to win the battle over homosexual unions until we get a grip on heterosexual unions. While I tend to dismiss a lot of statistics I see on the divorce rate among Catholics, I know that it’s high enough that many Catholics grow up in broken homes. And I know personally that cohabitation is very common. In that kind of environment, it’s hard to convince people that marriage of any sort is special. But we can start now with this generation.

Let’s first consider the difference between a covenant and a contract. A contract is an agreement between two people. The people promise and guarantee the fulfillment of the contract. A contract is an exchange of goods. The terms of a contract are mutually agreed upon. A contract is limited in scope and is temporary in duration. A contract can be broken at any time, the consequences of which are spelled out in the contract.

A covenant, on the other hand is an exchange of persons, not goods or services. The guarantor of a covenant is God Himself. The terms are set by God Himself. A covenant is unlimited in scope and lasts for the life of the parties. A covenant cannot be broken. You may violate the terms of the covenant, but the covenant is still in force.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say I need a mortgage to buy a house. A lender and I enter into a contract wherein they will give me cash that I can use to purchase the house and in return I agree to make monthly payments with interest, and maintain insurance on the house and lots of other things. The terms are mutually agreed upon. I agree on the loan duration and interest rate. The contract is an exchange of money: the bank give me cash now and I pay them back over time. The contract is limited in scope: it only involves the money to buy the house. The bank doesn’t care how many people live in the house, what color I paint it, what I do for a living or what race or gender I am. I in turn have no say over what the bank does with the money that I pay them every month. The contract is temporary: after I pay off the house, I have no further

5

relationship with the lender. And the contract can be broken; I can fail to pay the loan and the bank will in turn take possession of the house.

Let’s compare that to a covenant. In a covenant, there is not an exchange of goods, there is an exchange of persons. The parties actually enter into a familial relationship with each other. In a covenant, there is nothing outside the bounds of the covenant. I cannot, for instance, be bound by a covenant for only a few years, or only a few days of the week. My entire life is given up to the covenant. And a covenant cannot be broken. If a the terms are upheld, there are blessings. If the terms are broken, there are curses, but the covenant remains and the only way out is through death.

Now, in light of this definition, we have to ask is marriage a covenant or is it just a contract? If it’s a contract, then there’s no issue with divorce and remarriage, or marriage between two men, two women, a man and three women or any other combination.

The magisterium says that marriage is a covenant. Our marriage rituals are full of covenantal images and language. The vows include language “do you take... to have and to hold”. Not do I take my spouse’s property or debts, but do I take her. That’s the exchange of persons. The vows further state “in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor, till death do you part” that’s the universal nature of a covenant, not the limited scope of a contract. In a marriage, I’m not bound by my vows only on certain days of the week, or for a set duration. In the wedding ceremony itself, we have the bride’s family sitting on one side of the church and the groom’s on another. That’s covenantal imagery. When families or nations would join together in a covenant, the leaders or representatives would walk together between the two parties signifying the covenant.

Finally the family is open to the production of life that would be the blessing of the covenant. The family is a local community that fosters and preserves life. All of society is based on that fact. Families working together to better foster and encourage life. An individual family may not be able to educate its children, so it joins with other families to create schools. An individual family may not be able to maintain safety, so it joins with other families to provide a system of police and fire prevention and so on.

Let’s look at it from another angle. The Bible says that we’re made in God’s image. What can that mean? Well, let’s look at some of the known attributes about God. God has an intellect, a will and the the ability to love. I, by my nature, also have an intellect, a will and the capacity for love. I can do none of those things perfectly the way God can, but I share those qualities with God, to the extent that my nature permits me.

We also know that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that the Son is begotten of the Father. Can I do that, by my nature? In fact, I cannot. I can’t reproduce through mitosis for instance. In this we have to go back to Genesis. God made us in His image, but male and female He made us. So by my very nature, as an image of God, I am incomplete. But together, male and female, by our natures we make up a more complete image of God (given the limitations of our human

6

natures).

What about gay marriage, then, or civil union laws? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an excellent letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care to Homosexual Persons in 1986, over the signature of one Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger which covers well the whole issue. Here are a few quotes.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self­giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self­indulgent.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well­intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil­statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro­homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

Contraception There’s something special about contraception. It doesn’t fit the categories. In America, we tightly control whether children have access to cigarettes or alcohol because those would harm their physical development. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to vote or enter into a contract because they are not mature enough to make important decisions like that. And yet contraception is readily available. Chemical birth control is available to girls too young to drive, despite numerous studies linking the pill to cancer. Not only the health aspects of the pill itself, but the behavioral aspects of encouraging frequent and casual sexual activity is doing unknown damage to our children. But beyond that is the moral dimension of contraception.

First, I looked at the nature of God and how we as marriage partners are called to image him. God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—made man and woman in his image and blessed them in the covenant of marriage with the command to be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth and having dominion over all of creation, to the glory of God (Gen 1:26­28). The very image in which man and woman were created was the unity of the three Persons of the Godhead, pouring themselves out in total self­donating love to each other. God restated this creation mandate in his covenant with Noah and his family with the same command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 9:1ff.). So the existence of

7

sin did not change the call of married couples to image God through procreation.

Saint Paul clarified that, in the New Covenant, marriage was elevated to the status of imaging the relationship between Christ and the Church. (At this point I had no idea that marriage was actually a sacrament.) And by the very life­giving power of love, God enabled a couple to reflect the image of God as the unity of the two became three. The question I asked myself was, Does our use of birth control—intentionally blocking the life­giving power of love while enjoying the unity and pleasure that the act of marriage gives us—enable my spouse and me to reflect the image of God in total self­donating love?

Second, I examined what Scripture had to say about children. The witness of the Word was overwhelming! Every verse that spoke about children spoke of them as only and always a blessing (Ps 127; 128). There was no proverb that cautioned about the expenses of a child outweighing his worth. There was no blessing pronounced over the man or woman who had perfect spacing between children, or the couple who had the right number of childless years before shouldering the burden of children, or the husband and wife who had planned each conception. These were thoughts I had learned from the media, my public school and my neighborhood, but they bad no foundation in the Word of God.

Fertility, in Scripture, was presented as something to be prized and celebrated rather than as a disease to be avoided at all costs. And though I could find no verse speaking negatively about people with small families, there was no question that larger families showed an outpouring of greater favor from God, according to a variety of passages. God was the One who opened and closed the womb, and, when he gave life, it was seen only as a blessing. After all, God’s desire from faithful marriages was “godly offspring” (Mal 2:15). Children were described as “arrows in the hand of a warrior. . . blessed is the man whose quiver is full.” Who would go into battle with only two or three arrows when he could go with a whole quiver­full?! The question I asked myself was, Did our use of birth control reflect how God saw children or how the world saw children?

Third was the issue of the lordship of Jesus Christ. As evangelical Protestants, Scott and I took Christ’s lordship over our lives very seriously. In terms of money, we tithed regularly no matter how tight funds were because we wanted to be good stewards of the money he had put in our care. Over and over we had seen the Lord meet our needs beyond what we had given to him. In terms of time, we honored the Lord’s Day, setting aside our studies, which were our work, even if we had exams on Monday. Many times over, the Lord blessed us with that day off, and we aced every exam we took on Mondays. In terms of talents, we assumed that we should always be available to serve the Lord in ministry and added service to our study workload gladly. To see lives blessed as a result of that ministry strengthened our faith and our marriage greatly.

But our bodies? Our fertility? Did Christ’s lordship extend that far? Then I read 1 Corinthians 6:19­20: “You are not your own. You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your bodies.” Perhaps it was more of an American attitude than a godly one to think of our fertility as something for us to control as we deemed best. The question I asked myself was, Did our use of birth control demonstrate faithfully living out the lordship of Jesus Christ?

Fourth, what was the will of God for Scott and me? We wanted to know and to follow the will of God for our lives. One Scripture passage that provided helpful food for thought was Romans 12:1­2:

8

I appeal to you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your minds, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Paul pointed out that a sacrificial life required the mercy of God—we were not asked to live this kind of life in our own strength. We could offer our own bodies as a sacrifice in worship—there was a physical side to being spiritual. One of the keys to knowing how to sacrifice in a way that proved the will of God was to differentiate properly between the messages of the world and the truths of God. That meant we had to renew our minds actively in God’s Word. And so much of my study in the area of contraception had led me to do just that—meditate on Scriptures that presented a different picture from what the world seemed to shout.

Hahn, Kimberly; Scott Hahn (2009­12­07). Rome Sweet Home (p. 37). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition. ...

Now I understood why the Roman Catholic Church opposed contraception, but what about Natural Family Planning (NFP)? Wasn’t this just Catholic birth control?

First Corinthians 7:4­5, speaks of periods of time in which spouses could abstain from sexual relations for reasons of prayer and then resume relations to keep Satan from getting a foothold in their marriage. In reading Humanae Vitae, I came to appreciate the balance of the Church in her understanding about contraception. There was a godly way to experience the act of marriage and to be prudent in serious circumstances by practicing continence during times of mutual fertility. Just as with food, there could be times when fasting was helpful; so there could be times when fasting from the act of marriage for prayerfully considered reasons could be helpful. Yet, apart from a miracle, one could barely survive while fasting most of the rime. So, likewise, NFP was presented as a prescription for difficulty rather than as a daily vitamin for general health.

Hahn, Kimberly; Scott Hahn (2009­12­07). Rome Sweet Home (p. 39). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

I talked a bit about sharing the attributes of God earlier. What is my intellect for? It’s to know the truth and goodness and beauty of God and His creation. Can I misuse it? If I use my intellect to learn how to build a bomb, for the purposes of terrorism, that’s a sin, isn’t it? What about my will? The final cause of my will would be to do the work of God on Earth. But what if I use my will to kill or destroy. Wouldn’t that be a sin? If I refuse to love others, or if I love what is hateful in God’s eyes, isn’t that a sin? Finally what about my fertility? If I misuse it, or thwart the intention for which it was designed isn’t that also a sin?

When I was talking about the attributes we share with God, I was careful to always say we share those attributes by our nature. It’s possible we don’t share them in actual fact. Perhaps an individual doesn’t have use of his intellect and will, or is rendered infertile, due to injury or illness. But that person does not cease to be human because of that condition. Even though his nature is damaged, it is still in his nature to possess all of those attributes and therefore he can still be

9

said to be made in the likeness of God, just as much as a healthy person.

Women Priests This is, in my opinion, the issue for dissenters on the liberal side. While most liberal dissenters support contraception and gay marriage and take a relaxed view towards abortion, it’s not universal. However, there seems to be unanimity in the that camp that women should be ordained to the priesthood. And unfortunately they are still out there, poisoning the faithful.

To help stomp this heresy out, we have two excellent documents from the Church which can be of enormous help. The first is Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” and the second is a document written by the CDF “Inter Insigniores”.

The Church’s argument against women’s ordination is simple: Jesus did not call women to be apostles therefore the Church does not have the authority to ordain women to Holy Orders.

The arguments that try to support women’s ordination take a couple of directions. First and foremost, it seems discriminatory to exclude women from the priesthood. The institutional power of the Church is held by men who are all ordained priests (though not parish priests: but the Bishops and Pope all are ordained priests). Therefore, excluding women from the priesthood is tantamount of excluding women from power in the Church.

The CDF has this to say in response:

The pastoral charge in the Church is normally linked to the sacrament of Order: it is not a simple government, comparable to the modes of authority found in States. It is not granted by people's spontaneous choice: even when it involves designation through election, it is the laying on of hands and the prayer of the successors of the Apostles which guarantee God's choice; and it is the Holy Spirit, given by ordination, who grants participation in the ruling power of the Supreme Pastor, Christ (cf. Acts 20:28). It is a charge of service and love: "If you love me, feed my sheep" (cf. Jn 21:15­17).

For this reason one cannot see how it is possible to propose the admission of women to the priesthood in virtue of the equality of rights of the human person, an equality which holds good also for Christians. To this end use is sometimes made of the text quoted above, from the Letter to the Galatians (3:28), which says that in Christ there is no longer any distinction between men and women. But this passage does not concern ministries: it only affirms the universal calling to divine filiation, which is the same for all. Moreover, and above all, to consider the ministerial priesthood as a human right would be to misjudge its nature completely: baptism does not confer any personal title to public ministry in the Church. The priesthood is not conferred for the honour or advantage of the recipient, but for the service of God and the Church; it is the object of a specific and totally gratuitous vocation: "You did not choose me, no, I chose you, and I commissioned you. . . " (Jn 15:16; cf. Heb 5:4).

It is sometimes claimed that Jesus chose only men because of cultural norms of first century Palestine and we shouldn’t be bound by that. In the first place that’s elitist (we’re so much better than those nasty, brutish people living long ago), and in the second place, there’s no evidence at all that this is true.

10