St. Chiara

Historical Romance

2012-01-24T22:54:00.000-08:00

Now available from Amazon.com and CreateSpace eStore

Captain James Marsh returns from WWII and leases a house in the English countryside. The cleaning staff find a mysterious cameo brooch. When trying to find the owner, Captain Marsh learns about an English girl on the Grand Tour in 19th century Italy and how she is brought face to face with the real Catholic Church.

Message to Americans from Canadians

2012-01-22T23:38:00.000-08:00

Canadians are not Americans. Canadians are North Americans, however, and so are Mexicans for that matter. Americans seem to insist that Canadians are Americans. We do not say that Stephen Harper is an American Prime Minister, do we? And yet, logically, if Stephen Harper is American, and a Prime Minister then we could say he was an 'American Prime Minister'. Of course, this is ridiculous and no one thinks this. To put it simply, Canada, the USA and Mexico are all in North America. So Canadians, Americans (those people who are citizens to of the United States of America) and Mexicans are North Americans. But we are not all Americans. Only those who are citizens of the United States of America are Americans. We are separate countries with separate governments, separate flags, unique histories and we both speak dialects of English. By the way, in Canadians don't call Iraq 'Eye-raq' and we spell colour, honour and cheque differently. So please, please don't call Canadians 'Americans'.

Controversial Editorial in Canadian Medical Association Journal.

2012-01-17T21:46:00.003-08:00

CBC News, Vancouver at 6 pm January 16, 2012 reported that a ‘controversial’ editorial has been written in the CMAJ by the editor-in-chief (interim), Dr. Rajinder Kale. Controversial? You bet! Dr. Kale advocates that the results of the child’s gender from an ultrasound should be withheld from the parents until the very late stages of the pregnancy. In his editorial, entitled, “It’s a Girl - Could Be a Death Sentence” (online www.cmaj.ca January 16, 2012) he states that a considerable number of Canadians in the South Asian and Chinese communities use these ultrasound results to choose boys over girls. In other words, if the ultrasound shows that the baby is a girl, an abortion is done. Boys are preferred over girls because girls prove very expensive before marriage when a dowry must be paid to the groom. He claims that this type of abortion “is the worst form of discrimination against women.” Dr. Kale cautions against painting all South Asians or Chinese with the same brush as some are against such practices. But he adds “...postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. ...If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?” It, is of course, what people in the pro-life movement have been saying all along. But now we have a medical doctor who has written that abortion should not be used as a means of selecting boys over girls. But the implication in the editorial is more than that isn’t it? For if the ‘foetus’ is a boy or a girl, it is not just a ‘growth’ or a ‘blob of tissue’ that the mother has a right to do away with. Another medical doctor, Dr. Parghit Singh was also interviewed on the CBC report and he said that the practice of aborting female babies is ‘barbaric’. He actually said ‘female babies’! These two are not those radical,hated fundamentalists or Catholics who go marching around abortion clinics. Here are two doctors from South Asian cultures themselves who recognize that aborting female babies, for sex-selection at least, is wrong. It is a step in the right direction and perhaps soon people will realize that aborting babies of any gender is ending the life of not just ‘a foetus’ but a real, human life, ‘a baby’. It’s discrimination all right - against both male and female babies. And is it a barbaric custom.

A Program that Broke Barriers?

2012-01-08T23:39:00.005-08:00

The CBC television program "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is advertising another year on TV with the ad 'The little program that broke barriers'. It is always a good idea to have a storyline that helps in understanding other cultures and religions. People need to know that there are Muslims who live ordinary lives and that only a few are the "terrorists" of the news channels. There are Muslims who are nice, ordinary people living all across Canada. "Little Mosque on the Prairie", in that sense, did break barriers and is to be commended. The Muslims in the small, prairie town are nice, ordinary Canadians who just happen to be Muslims. But my question is, "Why is the Anglican minister such a jerk?" Surely someone who decided to become an Anglican minister (or any Christian minister or priest) did not do so because of the glory or the remuneration as they don't get much of either. Why then did Rev. Thorne study many years to become a minister? Shouldn't he know something about Christian teachings? We don't ask that he be perfect but does he have to be the most selfish, self-centered, rude and thoughtless person on the face of the earth?. Is that breaking down barriers or building them? How is the program presenting Christianity? The Muslims in the story are not perfect but the Imam, comes pretty close. Remember June Cleaver? She was Beaver's wonderful Mom, the Mom everyone wanted to have, on the 50's show, "Leave it to Beaver". The young and handsome Imam in "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is the modern and male equivalent: always trying to be kind, always having good advice, always fair and always doing the right thing in the end.
Let's have a bit of fairness (and reality) here. Muslims have the freedom to worship in Canada. Christians are still waiting for the equivalent in Saudi Arabia. But in the meantime, lets at least have an Anglican minister in the program who is a bit more realistic - not perfect - just what you would find in real life. Then you might be able to say you are breaking down barriers. I don't watch it anymore.

2011-08-23T18:46:00.002-07:00

Benedict XVI was "so emotional, he almost wept" during some of the key moments of World Youth Day, reports the archbishop of Madrid. (Zenit News Service, August 22, 2011).
I admit I felt the same way and I’m sure many others who watched the events on television did. What it must have been like to have been there! To see over 1 million people gathered together to share their faith in Jesus with others from all over the world! This is what it means to be Catholic - which means ‘universal’.
I agree with a Spanish woman who commented on the ‘young people who look so healthy and beautiful’. I couldn’t get over their beautiful faces, filled with joy and life. This is indeed hope for the future.
As these young people knelt to pray at the Vigil in Cuatro Vientos Airbase near Madrid there was an overwhelming silence. Over one million people - young people- that silent -is indeed a miracle of sorts.
I couldn’t help thinking about some other young people - those who recently rioted in Vancouver and also those who also rioted in London later in the year. The riots in Vancouver were apparently over nothing more than a lost hockey game! Do these young people represent the people in today’s society who have no purpose, no joy, no roots? How can people destroy the property of others and steal from the stores around - without any thoughts of what they are doing? Are these the ones who have never heard the words of Jesus, “Do to others what you would want them to do to you?”
Let’s be thankful that there are young people who know Jesus as their friend, who know that by their witness to Him the world can be changed. There will be many results of World Youth Day - we will not always hear the stories. We will not always hear about those who have come back to the Church of their childhood because of what they saw in those young people. We will not always hear the stories of the conversions. But we do know that faith, as small as a mustard seed, will grow.

A Wise Doctor

2011-05-14T22:52:00.001-07:00

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together. So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.' The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to do as she asked. Then, he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body, if you choose the one in your arms. The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child! 'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

The Abortion Dilemma Part II

2011-01-25T21:24:00.003-08:00

When I was training as a medical laboratory technologist (a long time ago), the term ‘foetus’ (or in the US ‘fetus’) was only used in the medical field. Ordinary people spoke about ‘unborn babies’ or ‘the baby’. Someone might ask expectant parents, “What are you going to name the baby?” or ask the expectant mother, “How is the baby?” She might answer, “This baby is very active. He is kicking me all the time.” or something similar. Have you seen an expectant mother wearing a t-shirt with an arrow pointing down to her stomach and a sign which says, “Baby here.” ? Did you ever see the UNESCO poster a while back, with a baby in utero, and the comment, “This might be the only home this baby will ever know.” ? Notice how the unborn baby is not called a ‘foetus’ in ordinary conversation. Only when one is talking about abortion is the word ‘foetus’ used. This is a clever move. We picture a ‘baby’ as something with big eyes, dimples, a cute smile, an innocent and very lovable being. A ‘foetus’ , on the other hand, does not sound all that human. It is not a ‘cute’ word. By using the word ‘foetus’ we can disassociate what we know as babies from the abortion discussion.
Maybe we should examine our use of language in this case. When do we use ‘foetus’ and when do we use ‘baby’? If an unborn child is ‘a baby’ how does it affect our feeling about abortion?
There is a newly released book, ‘Unplanned’ by Abby Johnson, a former director of an abortion clinic in the US. I suggest you read it. I haven’t read it yet, but have seen an interview on Focus on the Family and plan to read it soon.

The Abortion Dilemma

2010-11-04T11:32:00.010-07:00

Are you 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'? Do you know what these terms mean? Have you really thought about why you believe as you do? Or are you, like many, really not sure what to think about it all?
Many people, if asked, would say they were 'pro-choice'. This has a good ring to it in our modern world. Why should the government tell women what to do with their bodies? We, especially in the West, like to feel that we are free to do what we want, especially with our own bodies.
When thinking about abortion the questions we must ask are:
Are people always free to do whatever they want with their own bodies?
Should governments legislate what we can and cannot do to our own bodies?
Is a foetus a 'part of the woman's body' or is the foetus an 'individual being'?
What defines a person? Is a foetus a person?
When is it right to end the life of another person? When are we allowed to kill?

In this first 'edition' I will discuss the first four questions:

Are people always free to do whatever they want with their own bodies?
There are two clear cases that I can think of when a person cannot do what they want with their own bodies. The first is illegal substance use. The law in Canada (and in many other countries) says you cannot have an illegal substance in your possession – either to sell, give to others or presumably, to use yourself. You cannot use a drug yourself without having it in your possession and that is illegal. The second case is that we must use a seat belt when driving or riding in a vehicle. Not using a seat belt, when it saves a life, saves only the life of the person using the seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt will not endanger anyone else. You may be able to think of other things that we do with our own bodies that are illegal. Self-imposed suicide is not illegal as the person cannot be charged with a crime if the suicide is successful. Attempted suicide used to be illegal but now a person who has attempted suicide is more likely to have access to counselling and is not charged with any offense. Assisting in someone else's suicide is illegal in Canada and most states of the US but this does not fit into our search for 'what we are not free to do with their own bodies.'
Should governments legislate what we can and cannot do to our own bodies?
There are areas in which the government passes laws which help us to make the right choices for our bodies. Legislation against smoking in public places may be more to do with bothering others than in preventing cancer for the smoker. As it stands people are free to smoke as long as it is not in a public place or a place which causes danger to others (e.g. where oxygen tanks are in use in a hospital). Some provinces are trying to encourage people to eat healthier by making the use of saturated fats for frying fast foods illegal. This has not been widely done yet. Also some countries have tried to make wearing clothing that completely covers the face and the body illegal. One cannot understand why a simple head-covering should be a problem (as it does no harm to anyone) but a garment that completely covers the face and body could be used to hide dangerous weapons or explosives, or be used to smuggle goods into a country or make illegal entry possible as it masks the identity of the person. We can see that legislation for what we can do with our own bodies is a tricky business.

Governments Legislation and Our Bodies?

In 1859 John Stuart Mill, a British political writer, wrote On Liberty. In this work he discussed what role collective society should have over the individual. In other words: Can society (and the government) tell individuals what to do? His conclusions were:
•An individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself.
•For those actions which harm or hurt the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subject to social or legal punishment if society agrees on this action.
Many of our governments in the Western world operate under these guidelines.

Is a Foetus 'part of the mother's body' or is the Foetus 'an individual being'?

This is now a crucial question if we accept Mill's propositions. For if the foetus is only a part of the woman's body if she has an abortion she does harm to no one but herself. She is, therefore, not accountable to society for her actions. If, however, the foetus is an individual being, then an abortion does harm to another being and the mother (and those who have performed the abortion) are accountable to society.

Is a Foetus A Person?

Many have concentrated on whether or not a foetus is a 'person' under the law. Personhood has been defined in various ways: a person can make decisions, a person can own property, a person can feel pain. Some of these definitions raise problems as an infant cannot own property and would therefore not be a person according to that definition. No one thinks it is right to kill an infant. An interesting point is that women, before the 19th century in many countries, were not considered 'persons' under the law and yet to kill them would still have carried a penalty.
Margaret Sommerville, is an ethicist and founder of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, Quebec, Canada . She defines a person as anyone belonging to the species Homo sapiens or, in other words, any human. Sommerville elaborates by saying that no member of any other species is a person. So when we kill an animal we are not breaking any law but if we kill a human being then we are breaking a law. (Of course, there are those who would disagree and say that killing animals should be illegal. But that does not concern us here. ) The question, 'Is a foetus a person?' would have to be answered in the affirmative if we accept Margaret Sommerville's definition, for a foetus belongs to the species Homo sapiens. Not everyone agrees with her definition, however.
The foetus has a different genetic make-up than his/her mother having inherited genes from both his/her mother and his/her father. In other words, a foetus can have a different blood type or eye colour than the mother. Can we say, then, that a foetus is just a 'growth' or part of the woman's body? Is a foetus not a separate entity? A separate person?

These are the questions we must consider if we want to claim we are either 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'. We cannot just glibly say we are 'pro-choice' because we want to be in control. This is not the issue. The issue is, 'Are we killing a human being when we have an abortion?'

IVF's implication in Abortion

2010-10-08T21:12:00.005-07:00

British physiologist, Robert Edwards, was recently awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for medicine. It is not my intention to give the pros and cons of his winning nor to discuss the morality of the procedure which he perfected. But there are implications in the procedure with the other much-debated option - that of abortion.
When interviewed on television, Lesley Brown, the first baby to have been conceived by in vitro fertilzation, said that without this procedure she would not be here today. It would be nice if those who feel abortion is an acceptable option would see the relationship between what Ms. Brown said and abortion. If those babies whose lives have not been allowed to continue, that is, those babies who were aborted, could speak, wouldn't they say the very opposite? Wouldn't they say, "If it weren't for abortion, I would be here today." In one case a life was given, in the other, lives were taken away. If we can state the first truth, isn't it reasonable to admit, the second truth?

Suite 101 link

2010-08-29T11:58:00.001-07:00

Salt of the Earth or Dangerous Fanatics?

2010-07-17T10:09:00.005-07:00

In 1833 slavery in Great Britain ended. For eighteen years William Wilberforce had lobbied against the slave trade and had introduced anti-slavery motions in the British parliament. Finally the law to end the slave trade had ended in spite of the opposition of influential people who profited by it. After this success Wilberforce worked to make education accessible to all children and was involved in the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. William Wilberforce was an Evangelical Christian.
Three hundred years before Wilberforce, Thomas More, a Roman Catholic lawyer, was Lord Chancellor of England and Henry VIII's right-hand man. Because More would not acknowledge Henry's divorce from Katherine of Aragon and would not recognize the King as the Head of the Church in England over the Pope, the King had him beheaded. Before his execution More proclaimed, 'I die the King's servant, but God's first.'
Obviously these politicians did not believe they should leave their religious beliefs outside the doors of parliament.
Closer to our own time, Father Maximillian Kolbe, a Polish priest, boldly criticized the politics of Hitler in his newspaper and hid 2,000 Jews, saving them from the Nazis. Deitrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor and theologian, participated in the resistance movement against the Nazis in his native Germany. Both of these men died in concentration camps because of their actions. Notably, Father Kolbe offered to die in place of a man who was married and had children. Father Jerczy Popieluszko (1947-1984) a chaplain for Poland's Solidarity Movement, was instrumental in the resistance to Communism in his native land. He was killed by the Communist secret police in 1984 and his martyrdom led to the final defeat of Communism in Poland. They were not politicians but Kolbe, Bonhoeffer and Popieluszko took their religious beliefs into the political arena and risked their lives for them.
Lest some think there were no like-minded women, read about Florence Nightingale, who felt that God had called her to be a nurse, a profession that was unheard of for women of her class in the Victorian era. Florence defied convention and not only improved medical care of soldiers during the Crimean War but overhauled the training of nurses in Britain and made nursing a respected profession. An American convert to Catholicism Dorothy Day (1897-1980),began the Catholic Worker Movement to help the poor, many of them immigrants.
Were these people the 'Religious Right' of their day? Were they criticized by their non- believing contemporaries? Did they have a' hidden agenda'? Or were they just trying to be 'the salt of the earth' as Jesus had told his followers they should be?
In today's Canada surely there are those whose tactics even make some of their fellow-Christians cringe. But let us not forget there are still Christians who speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. There are still those who feel it is their responsibility to defend natural law. They may do this by their votes, by petitions, peaceful protests or even by running for political office but as long as they are not disobeying any law in Canada don't they, as taxpayers and Canadians, have a right to free speech? Perhaps we may even look back someday and thank them for the way they helped change society for the better.

Maternal Health Care?

2010-05-15T15:07:00.009-07:00

Canada has recently made a commitment to fund health care in developing countries in order to reduce maternal and child mortality. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated that abortion would not be part of the package.
On the other hand, Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal opposition party in Canada, disagreed claiming that abortion is a necessary part of maternal and child healthcare. Hilary Clinton, on a visit to Canada, butted in saying that access to abortion should be part of a health plan offered to developing nations.
The subject is likely to raise its ugly head again at the upcoming G8 meeting this spring in Canada.
But should abortion be an integral part of health care for mothers in developing countries? I claim that it should not be and here is why I say that.
I worked in the medical field in a developing country for fourteen years. Although I was not a midwife or a physican, I know firsthand that there are many ways to improve maternal and child health without providing abortions. Improved nutrition and access to trained medical professionals for prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care should be the primary foci.
Often the cause of a problem in an obstetric unit is post-partum haemmorhage (excessive bleeding after delivery of the baby). Here I was more involved. As a medical laboratory techonologist I had to find whole blood and crossmatch it with the patient so we could give her a transfusion. We usually had to find relatives of the same blood group to donate blood. Often the blood is needed urgently so if a mother delivers her baby in a remote area where these services are not available, the mother dies. We have to ask the question,'Is safe blood and the means to get it to the patient quickly available?'
Pre-natal (or in the UK antenatal) care is a vital part of maternal and child healthcare. Expectant mothers need food which provides all the vitamins and minerals necessary for formation of a child. The baby will take necessary vitamins from the mother and leave her depleted if she does not have enough for both. Foods rich in protein (e.g. meat and fish) are often too expensive or not available for everyone. Of course, calcium for strong bones, iron for healthy blood - these and lesser known minerals are also important. In developing countries it is necessities like these that need to be provided for expectant mothers.
Recent reports from Chile by epidemiologist, Dr. Elard Koch, claim that accessibility to professional birth attendants in a hospital setting is primarily responsible for a decrease in that country's maternal mortality rates: 275 maternal deaths/100,000 live births in 1960, 23/100,000 in 1999 and 18.7/100,000 deaths in 2000. In South America Chile has the lowest rate of maternal mortality and yet Chile's laws do not allow legal abortion!

Guyana, on the other hand, has allowed abortion since the 1990s and has the highest maternal mortality on the South American continent. In 1999 the maternal mortality was 110/100,000. Compare that with 23/100,000 in Chile in the same year. (See Nationmaster.com for stats)
Apart from the health care aspect - why do Western women want to impose their ideas about abortion on those women in Asia and Africa - many whose religion and traditional cultures teach that children should be welcomed? In many countries having children means that there will be people around to look after you when you are old. Yes, these families cannot have fancy houses or live lavishly but they believe that children are irreplaceable treasures.
I have spoken about maternal health and abortion and have not mentioned children. Obviously abortion is not very healthy for children!
Children who survive birth need to be protected from the diseases around them: mosquito nets so they don't get malaria, electrolyte packets to prevent serious dehydration when they have diarrhoea, nutritious foods so they are not anaemic and prevention of diseases like measles and polio. There are lots of things to spend money on without spending it on provision of abortion facilities.
Hopefully people will realize that abortion is not the answer to maternal and child healthcare - in fact, it is not health at all but the very opposite.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem

2010-03-30T16:20:00.008-07:00

I just returned from a trip to the Holy Land. On hearing Pope Benedict XVI's homily of the Palm Sunday Mass I wanted to share what he said about his own trip last year to the places where Jesus walked.

"The pilgrimage to the earthly Jerusalem," he said, "can be something useful for us Christians. Faith in Jesus Christ is not the invention of a fairy tale. It is founded on something that actually happened. We can, so to speak, contemplate and touch this historical event.

"It is moving to find oneself in Nazareth in the place where the angel appeared to Mary and transmitted the task of becoming Mother of the Redeemer to her.

"It is moving to be in Bethlehem in the place where the Word, made flesh, came to live among us; to put one's foot upon the holy ground where God wanted to make himself man and child."

"Following the material paths of Jesus should help us to walk more joyously and with a new certainty along the interior paths that Jesus himself points out to us," he said.

The Holy Father added, "When we go to the Holy Land as pilgrims, we go there, however as messengers of peace too, with prayer for peace; with the firm invitation that everyone in that place (which bears the word "peace" in name), has everything possible so that it truly become a place of peace."

"Thus," he said, "this pilgrimage is at the same time an encouragement to Christians to remain in the country of their origin and to commit themselves in an intense way to peace."

So to summarize the Pope said:
1) It is a great privilege to see the places where Jesus lived and walked and this can help us to appreciate His teachings and the sacrifice of His life for our salvation.
2) A visit to these lands should help us to pray for peace in these sometimes troubled lands.
3) Our visit can give hope and encouragment to Christians who have not left because of danger but have stayed.
(Pope Benedict's homily taken from a post on Zenit News Service on Palm Sunday, 2010)

Help! Where has Grammar gone?

2009-11-29T23:41:00.003-08:00

Often I hear people on television say things like:

I never seen it coming.

Please note that:
'saw' is the past tense of 'see'
For example: I see you in the picture.
Yesterday, I saw you at the Mall.

'I seen you.' is wrong, wrong, wrong.
We must say:
I have seen the movie, 'White Christmas six times.'
or She has seen the movie, 'White Christmas six times.'
You can say it quickly like:
I've seen the movie, 'White Christmas'. or
She's seen the movie, 'White Christmas.'
But you cannot say
I seen the movie, 'White Christmas'.
or She seen the movie, 'White Christmas'.
It is not correct English.
So in order to prevent early grey hair in English teachers or others who believe grammar is important, please try to use 'see' and 'seen' correctly.

Thank you.

Oh Canada or Not

2009-02-15T12:54:00.003-08:00

Oh Canada, or Not.

I admit I was upset when I heard that a school principal in New Brunswick had “banned the singing of the national anthem” because of two families who did not want their children singing it. With other Canadians I wondered incredulously, “What kind of people do not want their children to sing the national anthem?” and “Why would a school principal cave in to two families who did not want it rather than consider the majority of people in his school?”

On February 9, 2009, Susan Ormiston interviewed the Principal, Eric Millet, on CBC’s The National. The Principal stated that he had never banned the singing of the National Anthem but rather than having it played over the school’s PA system everyday changed to singing the anthem only at assemblies. By the way, there is no law which says “Oh Canada ’ must be sung at schools.

After the media broadcast the story of a “principal who banned the singing of the national anthem because several families didn’t want their children to sing it”, Eric Millet received over 2,000 e-mails, largely hate mail including some death threats. I wonder what this says about our civilized society? Many people (check out The National’s website comments on the story) assumed, incorrectly, that the families who complained were immigrants. The Canadian parliament ordered the school to re-instate singing the anthem and Eric Millet’s career as a Principal has been ruined. In fact, he wonders if he can ever go back to teaching again. He has obviously been traumatized at the amount and intensity of hate that was directed towards him.

In the interview with Mr. Mallet, Susan Ormiston did not apologize on behalf of the CBC and other media who made the false claim in the first place. Wouldn’t you think news reporters would check with the principal to get his side before releasing the story?

In the end there are some important things we can all learn from this unfortunate incident:

1) Don’t believe everything you read in newspapers or hear on television even if it is the news. Take the media to task if you feel it has not acted in an ethical or truthful manner. And check with Snopes before forwarding "hate-type" items received via internet.

2) Don’t jump to conclusions. Letters to the CBC written by those whose children attend Bellisle School in Springfield , NB. clearly state that the two families who complained about the anthem were not immigrants but were Canadians several generations back. Do some research on “religions’ that don’t allow the singing of national anthems – there aren’t that many.

3) Don't generalize - there are good and bad people in every nationality, every group.

4) Don’t send hate mail to anyone. No one deserves it. If people are guilty of a crime – do what you can in order for justice to be done – but let the criminal justice system take care of the punishment. If you don’t think the criminal justice system is doing its job – write to the MPs involved and tell them so. Fight for justice for all – which means only the guilty are punished and the punishment is appropriate for the crime.

5) Remember what Flower said to Bambi, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”

6) And if you claim to be a Christian, remember Jesus’ words, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” (Actually a form of this is also taught by the other major world religions).

2008-11-06T10:19:00.004-08:00

The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Mozart!

The hills around Salzburg are alive with the sound of music. It was, after all, the setting for the movie “The Sound of Music” and the real-life story of Maria von Trapp that it was based on. But Salzburg is first and foremost alive with the sound of the music of Mozart for the city is justly proud of its most famous son.
I traveled from Vienna by train which turned out to be a very comfortable ride on Austria’s efficient rail system. The time went by quickly as we passed villages that looked like scenes from fairy tales. Too soon the train pulled into Salzburg station. My compartment companion was on his way to spend a weekend in Salzburg with his girlfriend and said they would drive me to my accommodation.
After settling in my lodging next to St. Sebastian Church, I went out for a walk around Salzburg. Winding streets where no vehicles are allowed are lined with shops to entice the tourist: savvy fashions, hand made pottery, cafes and of course, restaurants.

There are many concerts where one can hear “a little night music” performed in Salzburg. Churches in Salzburg often pay tribute to Mozart by using his music in the Mass, which is, of course, for what many pieces were originally composed. The best part of these “performances” is that they are free!
Some of these performances include dinner such as does the one at St. Peter’s Stiftskeller, which claims to be Central Europe’s oldest restaurant. This restaurant, built in AD803, was documented during a visit by Charlemagne. I searched the winding streets to find the church and restaurant and, when I finally did find it, decided to have dinner there. The turkey schnitzel served with parslied potatoes and cranberry sauce accompanied by a glass of white wine was truly heavenly.

At its Mozart’s concert, later in the evening, the restaurant serves a menu that is made up of 18th century dishes; food that may have been served during Mozart’s time. Mozart’s Mass in C-minor was first performed at St. Peter’s Church in 1789 and the Mozart family did actually eat at the restaurant at least on one occasion (but more than likely more often). Nannerl, Mozart’s older sister, wrote in her diary, “Papa and Henry had lunch at St. Peter’s and made music.” Nannerl, whose real name was Anna Maria, was a talented musician in her own right and both she and her more famous brother, Wolfgang, were taken by their father to play at the courts of Europe. You can still see her grave behind St. Peter’s in the cemetery.

Mozart’s birthplace, a house on Getreidegasse 9, is now a museum where the violin he used as a child is on display along with other items. A later Mozart residence, Tanzmeisterhaus or The Dancing Master’s House is near Trinity Church on the Markartplatz. It is also open to the public with an entrance fee.
The next day I took a short city bus ride (# 6 bus to Plainbruke) followed by a pleasant twenty minute country walk to Maria Plain Basilica. On the way I passed typical Austrian farm houses, complete with the smell of manure, and looked back on fantastic views of the city of Salzburg. There were spring flowers blooming along the road and the air was crisp and cool. Maria Plain is a twin-towered, cream and turquoise basilica on the top of a hill overlooking Salzburg. At the altar is an icon of the Virgin Mary which in the 16th century miraculously escaped being destroyed in a fire. Mozart chose the peaceful sanctuary of this basilica to compose his Coronation Mass for the Blessed Virgin Mary. From the hill where Maria Plain is situated there is an unbeatable view of Salzburg lying in the valley below.
At the traditional nearby Gasthaus I had a light lunch of cold cuts, salad and scrumptious fresh bread before walking back (this time downhill) to Salzburg and the bus.
On the bus I noticed the stop, Mirabelplatz, and decided to get off to explore. In the gardens of the Mirabel Palace, amongst fountains and formally laid gardens, there is a moss-covered pavilion where Mozart composed one of his most popular pieces “The Magic Flute”. One of the fountains made an appearance in the movie, “The Sound of Music”, too, for that is where the family danced and sang “Do, Re, Mi.”
A tour offered by one company is a “Sound of Music” tour which takes you to places featured in the film including the convent where Maria was a novitiate nun before her marriage, the church where Maria and Baron von Trapp were married and the villa used as their home in the film. I didn’t take this tour but I did hear that it is very worthwhile.

Back in central Salzburg I relaxed with a melange (the Austrian version of cafe latte) and apfel strudel at the Stern Hotel Terrace and drank in the view as well. The Hohensalzburg Fortress, built in 1077, overlooking the Salzach River and the town below with its many church steeples is a memorable picture.

The narrow streets of Salzburg are filled with unconscious charm, no doubt one reason the old, baroque part of the city has been chosen as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Sight. There are outdoor restaurants, graceful arches with painted murals and the inevitable gift shops overflowing with Mozart chocolates, liqueurs and other souvenirs.

Even if you are not a fan of Mozart there is still lots to keep you occupied in Salzburg. Slosh down an Austrian beer with weiner schnitzel at one of the outdoor cafes. Get lost in the small winding streets shopping for china or drindls (traditional Austrian dresses). Spend a peaceful moment in one of the lovely old churches. Or climb up to the Fortress for another view of the town. One thing is for certain, you will never be bored in Salzburg.

2008-06-08T21:41:00.000-07:00

Good Friday, 2008.
We are often led to believe that churches nowadays are empty. Oh, one may guess that the more lively, aggressive churches attract members but the Catholic churches plagued by scandals and an outdated papacy must have empty pews. Right?
Well the Catholic church I went to on Good Friday was packed to the rafters – no sitting room and people standing at the back. As there is nothing unusual about this parish, I have no reason to believe that any of the other parishes in the area were lacking worshippers either.
Why would people spend two hours in church on a spring day-off from work? Were there just old people there or those who had nothing better to do with their time? No. There were old people and young people, families with small babies, those with young children and those with teenagers. There were old and young and those in between. There were just as many men as women. There were those who were dressed in jeans and hoodies, and those that were dressed in “dressier” outfits. There were teachers, business men and women, truck drivers, students, stay-at-home moms, electricians and university professors. There were those who were born in Italy, Ireland, Germany, the Philippines and Korea and those who were born in Canada.
One might say that these are the Christmas/Easter crowd –those that go to Mass only at these times. But this was Good Friday not Easter Sunday. The ‘twice a year crowd’ would normally go on Easter Sunday.
In a former age (years ago when I was kid, for example) one could say people went to church because it was good for business, they had to keep up appearances or they wanted to look good. But today it is not particularly fashionable to go to church, it is not necessary and one doesn’t gain much socially from going. Furthermore, why go on Easter if you don’t go the rest of the year?
But there they were – people going up to venerate the cross, people kneeling and praying – traditions and prayers that have been used since the first centuries of Christianity. Not all of these people are stupid or deluded or out-of-date. Maybe, just maybe there is something to Christianity after all.
Whatever. I have come to the conclusion, though, that the people who spread the rumour that churches are empty are people that never really go themselves. Perhaps it is one of those “urban legends” one hears about!

Did the Catholic Church Suppress the Bible?

2007-08-09T14:43:00.003-07:00

Recently I watched a program which discussed the belief in the Bible as the Word of God before and after the Reformation. There were the usual ‘experts’ who gave their comments but in this particular program I must say they seemed to represent only Protestant thought and one that was particularly negative concerning the Catholic Church at that. Although some of it was very interesting, I felt that it misrepresented what the Roman Catholic Church has historically taught and still teaches concerning the Bible.
The line went, “The Catholic Church tried to keep the Bible from the people. We see this because the Bible was only in Latin, people were not encouraged to study the Bible and it was not translated into the languages of the people until the Reformation.” Although this is a popular fable passed around it is certainly not the complete story.
It is true that the language used by the Catholic Church for Scriptures and as well, the Mass, was Latin and remained so until Vatican II in the 1960s. In fact Latin is still the official language of the Church and important documents are still written first in Latin, thus not favoring any other particular language in use today.
In the Europe of the Middle Ages this had some other advantages. It was not uncommon for scholars to study in a university far away from their own country. Scholars and other educated people all understood Latin so one could be an Englishman studying in a university in, say, Bologna and still be able to understand the Mass. The university lectures would also be in Latin making it easier to study wherever you wanted to. Latin was a universally understood language in the Europe of the Middle Ages even more so than English is in the world today.
Now, of course, there were those who did not read or understand Latin: the common, uneducated people, and one might suppose they were at a distinct disadvantage. However, except for Scripture readings, the Mass follows the same pattern every time it is celebrated (even today) and those who attended would be familiar with the language they heard each Sunday. Furthermore, the homilies (or sermons) were in the language of the people so the teaching of the Scripture was in a language they could understand. It is probably true that the average person knew more of the Bible in the Middle Ages than they do today. The sermon at Mass, the art in the stained glass and paintings, the morality plays presented in the market – all these things taught the “unlettered” men and women the gospels in spite of the fact that they did not know Latin.
In any case, it was probably not until the late Middle Ages that the uneducated English could read their own language. Chaucer, who was born in 1340 or 1344, was the first to write in the language of the common man in England. How many ordinary people could read English? Until the printing press was invented probably not many.
It does seem though that in England the Scriptures in the language of the people lagged behind compared to other European languages. Remember that England had had Norman kings who spoke French and that only French or an Anglo-Norman dialect was spoken at court from the tenth to about the fourteenth century. English peasants called the animals in the field, cows, pigs and sheep but at court where the meat was served at meals they were boeuf, porc and mouton (which later came into English as beef, pork and mutton).
So much for England. Were there Scriptures in the language of the people in other countries in Europe?
Bishop Ulfilas (318-388) devised an alphabet for the Goths and translated the Old and New Testaments into their language soon after.
Another of the earliest translations of Scriptures must have been in 411 into Armenian by Mesrob who also invented their alphabet.
In the ninth century St. Cyril and St. Methodus invented an alphabet (the Cyrillic alphabet still used in Eastern Europe) for the Slavs and translated a Bible into Bulgarian.
Parts of Psalms, Revelation and some of the Old Testament were translated into French as early as the seventh century. A complete version of the Bible was made in the thirteenth century.
In Italy a complete version of the Bible in vernacular Italian was available in 1472 and this manuscript is now in the National Library at Paris.
There were numerous versions of parts of the Bible in German as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries and there was a complete Bible in the fifteenth century before the invention of printing and well before Luther’s New Testament in 1522.
The first Bible in Dutch was printed at Delft in 1475.
The first complete Polish Bible was printed at Kracow in 1561.
There were even portions of Scripture translated into Arabic as early as the tenth century and an Arabic Bible was published at Rome in 1671.
So we see that there were Scriptures in languages other than Latin available well before the Reformation. The Reformation or the Protestant Movement in the 16th century had the advantage of a newly invented printing press. The inventor of moveable type was the German, Johan Gutenburg (1400?-1468?) who, by the way, was a Catholic.
Before the printing press, Catholic monks had been copying Scriptures by hand from the earliest manuscripts down through the centuries We must remember that if they had not preserved God’s word neither Catholics or Protestants would have the Scriptures today.
Not only is it said that the Catholic Church did not have Scriptures available in the common languages, the Church is also accused of keeping the Bible away from the people, even going so far as chaining Bibles in the Church! Remember that before printing had been invented the Bible was hand-copied and therefore copies were both rare and expensive. Chaining the Bible to the Church would keep it from being taken away and therefore making it more available to those who were able to read. One can compare this with telephone books that are chained up at public telephone booths today – not to keep people from using them but keeping them available for all.
Did the Church discourage people from reading the Scriptures and “Bible study”? The answer to this is “yes” and the feeling of the danger of Bible Study has continued to recent times. Even though one might see Bible studies taking place in Catholic parishes today there are good reasons to discourage personal “Bible study”. One only has to look at the results of ‘uncontrolled’ bible study – the thousands of new denominations and even cults that develop because someone interprets a Bible verse in his or her own way. The resulting deep divisions are often over minute differences of Biblical interpretations. One simple example is: Paul wrote that a woman should cover her head in church. Is this something which reflects the culture of the time or is it a commandment from God that should be followed today? Some Protestant churches insist on women wearing hats in church but most do not.
Reading the Bible within the context of the Church is however encouraged by the Catholic Church today. With the guidance of scholars of the Church we can understand Scripture by knowing what the writer meant and how it was understood in the culture of the listeners of the time and then move on to what it can mean for us. The Church has people who are experts in languages, culture and translation who can help us understand the Scriptures. Furthermore, in the Catholic church perhaps the major reason for reading Scripture is that it might be obeyed, not so much that we need to dissect it every which way in order to understand it. Is it really so difficult to understand what it means to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” for example?

As to how the Catholic regards Scripture one only has to look at the following quotations to get an idea of this:
St. Jerome (340-420) said, “Not to know the Scriptures is not to know Christ.”

A document from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) states, “Among other things that pertain to salvation of the Christian peoples, the food of the Word of God is above all necessary, because as the body is nourished by material food, so is the soul nourished by spiritual food, since, '...not by bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4).

And finally, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “In Sacred Scripture, the church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, ‘but as what is really is, the word of God.” (103)
“And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life. Hence, access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.” (131)
It is sad to see ignorance that causes misunderstandings amongst Christians but sadder still to see ignorance perpetuated by television programs and books written by those who should have done their research beforehand.

2006-01-01T00:29:00.001-08:00

A Journey Home

The man at the front of the classroom was telling the story of Moses and the Exodus from Egypt. When he explained about the blood which the Israelites put on the door posts of the houses and linked this blood of a lamb to the Blood of the Lamb, Jesus, a light snapped on in my head. I was twelve and had heard this story many times. I had heard it in Sunday School at the church where my Mom and I went and I had probably seen it portrayed by this time in the movie, The Ten Commandments. However, until now I had never heard of the link between Jesus’ crucifixion and the story of the Passover. I had always wondered why Jesus had died. I had wondered with the crowd at the foot of the cross, “If you are God, why don’t you save yourself?” Now it made sense. It was all God’s plan for our salvation.
The Baptist minister who was speaking to our class was the husband of our teacher and he came to school every week to teach us about the Bible. It wasn’t in the curriculum and eventually some of the parents complained (I’m glad to say my parents weren’t amongst those) and the classes were stopped. But not before I “had accepted Jesus as my Savior and committed my life to Him”.
After I was “saved” I worried about my parents not being Christians. My mother had been brought up a Catholic but had married my father, a non-Catholic. As they were married by a Protestant minister this meant, in those days, that my mother would not have been able to receive the Eucharist after her marriage. Some of the small towns where we lived during my childhood did not have a Catholic church in them anyway, after all this was the Bible-belt of Alberta, so my mother and I attended a United Church (a union of Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists in Canada). My father, although he had been brought up in a devout Lutheran family, did not go to church because he said he had seen too much hypocrisy in all churches. Probably an excuse, yes, but perhaps not without some truth. The fact that my mother prayed the Our Father, had taught me about Jesus, went to church, led a righteous life and was kind to everyone did not count much with me. Later I saw that her charity towards others and her faith was deeper than that of some Evangelicals who didn’t consider her a Christian.
After I finished school I went away to train as a medical laboratory technologist, I continued to go to Baptist churches or churches which were similar. I worked for a few years but I felt my lack of Bible knowledge made it difficult for me to witness to others so I went to Bible School. I was a bit worried that it would be just like a prolonged Sunday School lesson. I found I actually enjoyed the studies and studied subjects other than the Bible, such as theology, English literature and Christian education. My favourite instructor was a godly man, Mr. Simmons, an Anglican, who challenged students from Evangelical churches to think more deeply about what they glibly said they believed.
During Bible school years I met people from one mission in particular which appealed to me. This was the Overseas Missionary Fellowship (OMF), formerly The China Inland Mission, which had been started by Hudson Taylor. I had read his biography and some of his writings and had been impressed by the integrity of his life. The fact that OMF did medical work and not just evangelism, prayed about their needs instead of asking people for money and accepted Asian nationals from the countries where they worked, were things that attracted me to them. I really didn’t want to be a missionary but OMF at that time needed a laboratory technologist for their hospital in South Thailand. I took this as a sign that God may be calling me to Thailand and applied but I hoped (and prayed) that I wouldn’t be accepted. At least I wouldn’t have to feel guilty if I applied but was turned down! “Unfortunately”, I was accepted and went to Thailand in 1969. Again God surprised me and I enjoyed my work and life in Thailand.
Leaving my parents was the hardest thing I have ever done and it didn’t get any easier over the next 14 years as I came home on furlough and went back to Thailand every four years. Since I was their only child I know now that it was very difficult for my parents to see me go, too. I would see tears in my father’s eyes but my mother always put on a brave front at the airport. We had always been a close family and I know seeing me board the plane was the hardest thing she had ever done, too.
One furlough when I came home from Thailand my parents had moved and I had to find a new home church. Evangelicals are sometimes not so tied to a denomination; they look for a church where they agree with the doctrine, where the pastor has good sermons or where there are friendly people. I was a bit disappointed when I went to some Evangelical churches and found the people more interested in being fashionable than in Christian missions and the music more for entertainment than worship. I had met some Anglicans I admired and whenever I went to an Anglican service I felt drawn to this type of liturgy. Moving to an Anglican church was a bigger step than going to another “free” church. Although there were members of OMF who were Anglican, North American evangelicals usually think of Anglicans as being “too liberal” (for example, not believing in the Virgin Birth). However, I knew there were many Anglicans who were evangelical or fundamental in their beliefs and I liked their openness more than the narrow attitude of some Evangelicals. Perhaps, I also wanted to shock those Evangelicals who thought of Anglicans as ‘too liberal”!
I found a lovely small Anglican church near my parent’s home. The people were interested in my missionary work and the Anglican priest was not liberal at all. People did not dress to show off their clothes and everyone seemed to accept one another as they were. My mother followed me there as she had always done and she said she liked it because it was so much like the Catholic church she remembered as a child. I loved the prayers in the Prayer Book and felt liberated from a judgmental atmosphere.
During my last few years in Thailand I lived in the same house as a missionary who was involved in the charismatic movement. It was quite amazing that she received a Roman Catholic Charismatic magazine called “New Covenant”! I liked reading the articles. I believed that each denomination had some truths, even the Catholic Church, although I questioned their emphasis on Mary. But I thought, with others, that there were some Catholics who were real Christians especially those in the charismatic movement as they, at least, studied the Bible!
I resigned from OMF shortly after my father’s death in order to be with my mother. By then I had been in Thailand for fourteen years. Linguistics had fascinated me when I was studying Thai and so I decided to go to university and major in Linguistics. A nearby medical laboratory needed someone to work evenings and weekends so I was kept very busy.
Strange to say, although I enjoyed studying at university and did well, I also became very depressed in my fourth year. I suppose part of it was re- adjusting to my own culture again, too. For example, the fact that all murders and rapes were reported on television news made me afraid to go out! In fact I had come from a more dangerous place in South Thailand where the hospital had once been shot at and two missionary nurses had been kidnapped and killed.
But one of the biggest challenges was living in Western society as an unmarried woman. When I had been a missionary there had been many other single women missionaries but at home a single woman my age was as strange as someone with two heads. In fact someone at work said to me, “You’ve never been married? Never?” If I had been divorced or living with someone this would have been acceptable but somehow being "single" was inconceivable. Christians accepted you on the surface, after all most evangelical missionaries are single women, but the final goal and prayer of everyone was to be married and if you weren’t, what was wrong with you? Of course, I had always wanted to be married and have a family like most women but it had not seemed to work out that way. I wasn't interested in the men that were interested in me and vice versa. Mother’s Day was especially painful as roses were handed out at church– only to those who were mothers! This I found out later also caused pain for those who were married but were unable to have children. What a contrast it was years later at a Catholic Church where everyone who was “motherly”, and not just those who were actually mothers, were prayed for on Mother’s Day.
A recent failed ‘romantic interest’ in my life didn’t help either but the underlying problem was that it seemed God didn’t answer prayer after all. Even when I had obeyed him by becoming a missionary (or perhaps because I had) he hadn’t led me to a Prince Charming. I would hang on to the Bible verses that seemed to say ‘whatever you ask for, you shall receive”. Yes, there were conditions but wasn’t I fulfilling the conditions? I later realized that I thought of God as a Santa Claus who was supposed to give me whatever I asked for. There was no idea of sacrifice or suffering in my Christianity. Also, I didn’t realize that some of my married friends envied my independent life which had included travel and education and living in a foreign country. Moreover, the marriages of several of my friends and relatives had ended in divorce.
One day I saw a sign at university about the prayer to St. Jude – I copied it out and brought it home. Why I, as an evangelical Christian, would do this I don’t know. My mother said she knew the ‘Hail Mary’ prayer that it mentioned and could help me with that. I didn’t know what to pray for: a husband? relief from the depression? or whatever was best for me? Actually, I never stopped believing in God – I just wondered why He didn’t keep His promises about prayer.
When God answered the prayer of St. Jude for me it was not what I expected. For into my life came David; a handsome, popular, Italian guy who began the Master’s program in Linguistics that I also had just started. . He wore a crucifix and some other medals so I figured he was a Catholic but I could see that David was one of those Roman Catholics who seemed to be a “real” Christian.
He was popular with the other students but I kept to myself in those days and went home after classes instead of working in the Grad student’s office. David however seemed determined to get to know me and talked me into going to a Rosary Group he and a Malaysian student had started. There I met other Catholics who seemed to be “real” Christians, too. Some were from Kenya, one was from Hungary and others were from Singapore and Malaysia so I got a feeling of how universal the Church is. They were all younger than I was and I was not a Catholic but they accepted me as one of their group without any hesitation.
David and I would have great discussions about religion over cups of coffee – and he was able to answer all my questions about Mary and the Pope and the other usual things that bother Evangelicals. He also gave me books to read: Evangelical is Not Enough by Thomas Howard, Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating and the tape by Scott Hahn telling of his conversion. As I read I could see I had a lot of misconceptions about what the Catholic Church believed. I came to see how wonderful the idea of authority was and how the Magesterium was a safeguard against endless multiplication of denominations and heresies. The authority of the Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, seemed so sensible and biblical. I would pray the Rosary (an Evangelical praying the Rosary!) as I walked to university and give thanks to God for new friends and a new outlook. At my first Mass I was so surprised and pleased at the “sermon”. I thought it could have been preached in any Evangelical church.
Does God have a sense of humour? I believe He showed a sense of humour when He answered the prayer of St. Jude for me. For although He had sent me a friend in David, He had not sent me a husband. Not only was he much younger than I was but he also said that after Grad school he was planning to join a religious order! I learned that in the Church there were vocations of marriage, of religious life and of single life. And moreover it wasn’t primarily women that He called to a single life as it is in Evangelical circles. Actually, several members of the Rosary Group later entered religious life.
At one of our coffee discussions I said to David, “But Luther was right in being upset about the Church selling indulgences wasn’t he?” David lost his patience. “Lorraine, we’ve talked about this several times. Now you just have to make up your mind whether you’re going to join the Church or not.”
He was right, of course. So I called and I left a message for the person in charge of RCIA at the University Community but he didn’t call back. When I finally did reach someone, he said they weren’t having RCIA that year and directed me to a nearby parish. I called them but they held the meeting on Wednesdays and that was an evening I worked at the medical lab.
Finally I found one parish that held the class on a day I could attend. I kept thinking that if it were an Evangelical church things would have been made easier and someone would probably even have picked me up for the meetings. But I drove by myself one night a week, often on icy roads, for 8 months to attend the class. I remember thinking, “Boy, you really have to be determined to join the Catholic Church.”
I’m afraid my attitude was rather arrogant in the classes at first. After all I’d been to Bible School for three years, had been a missionary for fourteen years so I was sure I knew more than some of the people who were teaching the class. I discovered that I underestimated what “ordinary” Catholics know. Although I did learn a lot about the Catholic Church from what I read outside the class, these people did know the Gospel and the Bible. Besides, they were a lot more charitable than I was. I still admire those “cradle Catholics” and their authentic faith.
We were always told that by coming to the classes we should not feel pressured into joining the Church if we didn’t feel ready or didn’t ever want to join. I never doubted that I wanted to become a Catholic but I wanted to make sure that it was not just because of any influence David may have had on me. I came to see that even when I was angry at him over something (and at this time it was quite often) I still felt compelled to become a Catholic. I came to realize it wasn’t his influence that made me want to become a Catholic but something else or rather Someone else who was drawing me to His Church.
The parish chose a sponsor for me, Gloria, a faithful volunteer in many areas of church work. She had trained as a nurse at a hospital in another province where I had also been (although not at the same time) yet no one at the church knew that I had ever worked at that hospital!
I was received into full communion in the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil, 1990 with the members of the Rosary Group from university filling two pews. After the Vigil, the Rosary Group had a reception for me with all my new friends. And a very international group it was! They presented me with a gold Crucifix on a chain which I still wear.
My mother attended Mass at the University with me and she really respected the new priest, Father Louis. Eventually she said she would like to come back to the Church because she missed the Eucharist and she surprised me by saying, “No matter where I went to church, I have always felt Catholic”. Father Louis had several talks with her and she went to confession. And then this rather shy woman in her seventies read the Nicene Creed at a Mass for university students and was accepted back into the Church of her childhood. When she died seven years later, her funeral was in the parish where I had attended RCIA classes.
For several years I helped in the RCIA classes in the University community and then later in another parish.
I am still in contact with David who is now with the Dominicans. Over the years I got to know his parents and spent many happy times with his family. His mother and I even went on a pilgrimage to Mexico together when Pope John Paul II was there. David and I still pray for each other and I will always be grateful to him for helping me come home to the Church.
Three years after my mother died, I came back to Thailand, this time to teach English in Catholic schools. Although a couple of Evangelical friends cooled in their relationship with me, most of them (including some OMF missionaries) have remained good friends and put up with my Catholic quirks.
My ‘crossing the Tiber’ was the best thing that could have happened to me. I still can’t help crying sometimes at Mass – the beauty and truth of it is overwhelming. My conversion is an on-going thing, of course. I still have some un-Catholic attitudes and a lot to learn but gradually I am becoming more accepting of other people and I am learning more about what faith in Jesus means.

2005-11-14T23:08:00.008-08:00

The Da Vinci Codeby Lorraine Shelstad
Introduction
This book by Dan Brown has been a phenomenal best-seller in many countries. Some have commented that it is not particularly well-written,[1] especially that there is a lack of character development. For example, we don’t really know what Sophie and Langdon are like. In fact, the only thing we know of Sophie’s appearance is that she has green eyes and auburn hair. The characters and even the plot seem to be an excuse for the author to give his views on Mary Magdalene, Jesus and the Catholic Church. Others point out that that which is presented as “fact” is not really fact and that Brown’s research is flawed. This makes us wonder why the book has been so successful. That it is a good mystery with surprises is no doubt one reason. The other reason may be that it accuses the Catholic Church of having concealed the truth for 2000 years in order to hold onto power. Hatred against the Catholic Church seems to be the only allowable discrimination in today’s world. It would not be politically correct to write a book saying that Buddhists had lied about the life of Buddha for hundreds of years. No one would dare accuse Muslims of having lied to the followers of Mohammed. In fact, one of the main characters in The Da Vinci Code, actually discusses the folly of doing this.[2]
If anyone comes to the defense of the Catholic Church as The Da Vinci Code presents her, however, the book’s supporters cry, “But, after all, it’s just a story.” In other words it shouldn’t be taken too seriously. There are some problems with that, however, as some people do seem to take it seriously. Firstly, Dan Brown at the beginning of the novel writes some statements that he labels as “facts’. He also has said that he has done a great deal of research on the historical background of the book. Secondly, if one visits websites where comments are made by readers of this book it is amazing to see how many people take Brown’s historical “facts” as just that – historical and factual. What he has done is mixed truth and untruth which is surely more dangerous than total lies. If we see a movie such as The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, we know that these are not historically true – they are just stories. We can tell it is science fiction. If we read a novel like The Da Vinci Code, however, unless readers have done a lot of study or have background in specialized areas, they do not know what is true and what is not. If the author says it is “fact” the readers are liable to believe him.
I recently read a novel written several decades ago, War and Remembrance, by Herman Wouk.[3] This book is set in the time of World War II. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, as well as some lesser known real, historical people, are characters in the book. The things they say in private conversations cannot always be historically true, however, as the author was not present and the conversations were not recorded. In the book, there are also characters that are purely fictional. The story centres around the fictional Victor Henry and his family. Herman Wouk, being an author with integrity, writes a lengthy section he calls “Historical Notes” at the end of the novel. In it he explains who and what are historically true and who and what are only his fictional creations. It is an excellent novel which follows historical facts closely but also gives the author’s point of view on war, persecution of the Jews and on religion. Though some readers may not agree with all of his viewpoints, no one would sue him for libel. Wouk does not accuse real people or groups of real people with crimes that they did not commit. The Nazis are accused of crimes against the Jewish people but that is a historically correct fact. Some were convicted of these crimes at the Nuremberg Trials after the war. Dan Brown, however, has made claims and accused real groups of people of crimes which have not been proven as true. He accuses the Vatican of suppression of truth and paying bribes in order to suppress truth. One of the accusations against a group within the Catholic Church, Opus Dei, is murder – a serious charge! False accusation like this is known as slander or libel and is an immoral and often, an illegal offence. Although at the end of the book, Brown says that the Church is innocent after all, one wonders how he can claim this after what he has said the Church has done.
There is also a problem in questioning the so-called historical facts. If we use Scripture or any historical document to defend the Church against claims in The Da Vinci Code, Brown can just answer, “Well of course that is what the documents say because they have been changed by the Church.” So it is really the word of the accusers against the word of those accused. Nothing can be proven because both sides can say the others are lying. Those who could tell us what is true have been dead almost two thousand years.
What are some of these claims and accusations that the author of The Da Vinci Code makes and what are the defenses against them?

The Da Vinci Code Claims
Briefly, The Da Vinci Code centres around the following claims: Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child; Jesus is not God, he was only a teacher; He was crucified but there was no resurrection. Christians did not claim that Jesus was God until after the Council of Nicaea in 354 AD. Mary Magdalene was meant to be the leader of the Church instead of Peter. The Church kept this a secret in order that men, and not women, would retain power over it. The men of the Church (Brown calls them “the Vatican”, but the Vatican did not exist until the fourteenth century) kept this secret and destroyed the gospels which tell the truth about Mary Magdalene. At the Council of Nicea, the Emperor Constantine, declared which books would be included in the Scriptures and rejected those which tell the truth. The Church kept all this a secret from the 4th century AD to the 21st century. The Sunday day of worship and other ideas were stolen by Christians from the pagans. The group, within the Church, Opus Dei, even commits murder in order to keep the secret. It is the “winners” who write history and therefore we cannot trust history. The “winners” or the Catholic Church wrote the history of Christianity and therefore it is biased. The true story of Jesus in the recently discovered gospels had been purposely left out of Scripture by the Church in order to suppress the truth about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The Church portrayed Mary Magdalene as a prostitute in order to blacken her name and ensure her true position would not be discovered. The Church also outlawed any mention of her name. The secret has been kept for 1500 years but the artist Leonardo da Vinci,[4] left clues in his paintings.

Are the Claims True?
Christians cannot be considered the “winners” before the time of Constantine (circa 273-337 AD). Christians were persecuted and killed by several Roman Emperors and not until Constantine and his fellow-Emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan (313 AD) was Christianity recognized as a legal religion. Since all of the canonical books of Scripture were written well before this date, they cannot be said to have been written by the “winners”.

Was Constantine a Christian?
Teabing (in The Da Vinci Code) explains to Sophie that it was Constantine, a pagan emperor, who chose the books of the Bible. Most of what we know about Constantine comes from what Eusebius wrote in, Life of Constantine. Granted his biography may be slanted in favour of the Church as he was a bishop! He tells the story as: Constantine, before an important battle, saw a cross against the sun with the words, “In this sign, Conquer”. He won the battle and converted from worship of the Sun god, Sol Invictus, to Christianity. This was the turning point for Christians in the Roman Empire as well. Until this time they were persecuted by Rome and many went to their death because they refused to worship the Roman gods. When Constantine legalized Christianity the persecution stopped. The Christians at the time, no doubt, heaved a huge sigh of relief. But Teabing claims that Constantine wasn’t truly converted but because Christians were multiplying and growing in power, he saw an opportunity and backed “a winning horse”[5] Then he used some of the ideas from his Sun-worshipping religion and adapted them to Christianity and all parties were happy. By the way, Sol Invictus was a male god and not a goddess so the female centered worship that Brown is concerned about does not really enter into the discussion about Constantine.
Firstly, it is not true that Christians were in the majority at the time of Constantine. A.H.M. Jones writes that
The Christians were a tiny minority of the population and they belonged for the most part to the classes of the population who were politically and socially of the least importance..... The senatorial aristocracy of Rome were pagan almost to a man; the higher grades of the civil service were mainly pagan; and all the army officers and men were predominantly pagan. The goodwill of the Christians was hardly worth gaining, and for what it was worth it could be gained by merely granting them toleration.[6]

No one knows, of course, what Constantine’s real motives were and whether or not his conversion was a true one. He did, however, make things easier, for the Christians at the time. He also did call the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 in order to end the arguments within the Church, not whether Jesus was divine, but how he stood in relation to God, the Father. Was his divinity equal with that of the Father? Or was he less divine? Constantine called and financed the meetings but he did not take part in them personally.
Teabing implies that Constantine was not baptized until shortly before his death because he was not really a Christian and was baptized against his wishes. However,it was common at this time to postpone baptism until shortly before death primarily because the penance for mortal sins committed after baptism was so complicated and strict. As an Emperor, particularly, he would be in a position where he would commit serious sins, such as that of torturing and killing prisoners. Constantine was baptized by Eusebius, a bishop, in A.D.337 and died a few days later. There is no evidence for or against the claim that he was baptized against his will.
Down through the ages, customs have often been adopted from pagan cultures after the people were converted to Christianity. In this way the culture also was “converted” so to speak. One common example is the Christmas tree, once part of pre-Christian celebrations in Scandinavian countries and now part of Christmas decorations in many parts of the world. Most scholars believe that December 25 was originally a pagan holiday but was appropriated by Christians as the birthday of Jesus to show his superiority. They kept some of the pagan festivals without paganizing Christianity but rather giving them new meaning to converts in that culture. The Church does not keep it a secret that no one knows the exact day of Jesus’ birth.
It is true that Sunday was a special day to Sun-worshippers, but Sunday had already replaced the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) as the day of worship for Christians because Sunday was the day of the Lord’s resurrection. It is mentioned many times in both canonical Scripture (which pre-dated Constantine):

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow. Acts 20:7

and writings of the Church Fathers:

They no longer observe the Jewish Sabbath, but keep holy the Lord’s day, on which through Him and through His death, our life arose. Ignatius of Antioch. (A.D. 110)

The use of cognates from Latin Deis Dominae for the Day of the Lord in the Romance languages, attest to this fact: Domenica (Italian), Dimanche (French) and Domingo (Spanish). These have nothing to do with the sun. English and other Germanic languages use the Day of the Sun: Sunday (English), Sonntag (German).

Was Jesus only a Prophet?It is also not true that Jesus was thought to be only a human prophet and teacher and not divine, until after the Council of Nicaea. The Scriptures are full of references to Jesus being God (divine) as well as being human. Only a few can be mentioned here:

Jesus claimed to be God and it was this that angered the Jewish officials and led to his crucifixion:

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked.
"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. Mark 14:62-64

Jesus’ use of “I am” was using the name that God had called himself to Moses, YWHW or “I am” (in the Old Testament) and the Jewish authorities recognized this.

When Jesus first appeared to the apostles after his resurrection, Thomas was not present and so he did not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. Later Jesus came to them again. This time Thomas was present and Jesus invited him to look at the wounds in his hands and touch the wound in his side. Thomas responds:

My Lord and my God! John 20:28

John in his gospel says this of Jesus:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. John 1:1-3

The writer of Hebrews says,
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”?........And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
But of the Son, he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Hebrews 1:5-6,8

There is also the writings of the Church Fathers. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110-117) wrote to the Ephesians:

"For Our God Jesus Christ was borne in the womb by Mary" (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, c. xviii)

Another Church Father, Tertullian (CA. 160-CA.225), states:

God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God.
Tertullian, The Soul, 41:3.

All these quotations are from writers who lived before the time of Constantine. Even though there have always been those who did not believe that Jesus was God, it seems his followers certainly did from the beginning.

Furthermore, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, there is no point to Christianity. Would so many people have died a martyr’s death just for “a good teacher”? St. Paul makes it clear that Christianity is meaningless without the resurrection of Jesus in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. I Corinthians 15:13,14.

What about the Gnostic Gospels?
It is true that there were a number of books (now called gnostic Gospels) which were in circulation, including the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, in the second century (100 -199AD). The Church had to decide which books were to be accepted as their official teachings. It was in the second century, at least two hundred years before the Council of Nicaea (and Constantine), that the Church narrowed down the choice of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for inclusion in the Scriptures. At this time the Church was not powerful or influential - Christians were still being persecuted by Roman Emperors. The NT canon of Scripture was set down by Iraneus, a bishop of Lyon, France at the end of the second century (so between 100 and 199 AD). He accepted the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)[7] even though two of them had not been written by Apostles (Luke and Mark). Luke was a physician who travelled with Paul and he also wrote the Acts of the Apostles which is also part of the Christian Scripture. Mark was possibly a nephew of Peter. Iraneus’ criteria for the canon was “the teachings of the churches in the earliest period, meaning whichever of these writings had actually remained in use since that time.”[8] Therefore the books which today are recognized by Protestants, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Churches as Scripture or the canon, were agreed upon well before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (the 4th century).

The Gnostic gospels (13 volumes) were discovered in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Egypt.[9] All of these books were written in the Coptic language and are probably translations from Greek. They were believed to have been written in the 2nd century (100-199 AD). Most Biblical scholars agree that the canonical gospels were written prior to AD70 although some put Matthew at 75-80AD. If this is the case, why would the gnostic gospels be more reliable accounts of the life of Jesus than the canonical gospels which were written closer to the time that he lived? Before AD70 there would have been other witnesses still alive who could have protested any errors in them. By the 2nd century anyone still living would have to be over 100 years old. Of course, Brown claims that the Church “tampered with” the gospels at the time of Constantine.

Reliability of the Canonical Gospels As ancient manuscripts are copied, scribes often make mistakes or omissions. Errors occur even in our modern day of computers but think of these lengthy manuscripts being copied by hand often with light from only a candle! The job of textual critics is to reconstruct the text to what is closest to the original. Textual critics may be Catholics, Protestants, Jewish; some are just interested in ancient manuscripts and languages and may not have any specific religious beliefs. Textual criticism is not only carried out on Scripture but on any ancient manuscript including classical texts. Usually there is only one existing manuscript, if there are more, say ten, than there is a great advantage in knowing what was originally written. But in the case of the New Testament, there are nearly five thousand manuscripts in Greek in existence as well as many quotations from them in the writings of others! Furthermore, the manuscripts of classical authors usually date only from the Middle Ages but there are manuscripts of the New Testament Scriptures as far back as the end of the 2nd century. That is, they were written only a century after the original manuscripts were written. Helmut Koester, a Professor at Harvard University, says, “Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors”.[10] It requires a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the Catholic Church or Constantine was able to “tamper” with five thousand manuscripts which were spread all over the Roman Empire. To orchestrate this today would be a feat but in the 2nd century one wonders how it would be possible.

Was Jesus married?
It seems that only one Gnostic gospel out of the thirteen, the Gospel of Phillip, suggests a special relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. In one passage the author uses the Greek word, koinonas, to describe the relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus and mentions that Jesus often kissed her on the mouth.
Following is the passage from the gnostic Gospel of Philip:

And the companion (koinonas) of ... Mary Magdalene loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples said to him, ‘Why do you love her more than all of us? The Gospel of Philip

Surely, if Jesus and Mary Magdalene had been married, the other disciples would not have found it unusual that Jesus loved her more than he did them!

In their discussion of this passage, Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel point out that koinonas can mean “spiritual companion” , “partaker with” or “consort”. It is used to describe a marriage partner in Matthew 2:14
Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you.
Although Teabing in The Da Vinci Code says that this “companion” always means “wife”, the word is also used in Scriptural passages to refer to non-sexual relationships :

If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them (koinonas) in the shedding of the blood of the prophets. Matthew 23:30

For he and all who were with him were amazed at the catch of fish that had taken; and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners (koinonas) with Simon. Luke 5:10

What the pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners (koinonas) with demons. I Corinthians 10:20

In regard to “kissing on the mouth”, there is also a passage in The Second Apocalypse of James (another Gnostic text) in which Jesus is said to impart his secret mysteries to James by kissing him on the mouth and calling him, “My beloved!” [11]

Why, if the Church had tried to destroy the gnostic gospels and still suppresses them and the information about a relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, can these gnostic gospels be accessed at the website of the Catholic Encyclopedia – http://www.newadvent.com/ ? Instead of suppressing truth it looks as if the Church is not afraid of anything these books might reveal. Truth is never afraid of the revelation of truth!

In the early Church, St. Paul defended his right to be supported financially by the churches he taught at. From other passages we know that Paul was not married but he asks if he would not have the right to bring his wife along as some the apostles do, if he did have a wife:

Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas n? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? I Corinthians 9:5-6.

He mentions Cephas (Peter) and the Lord’s brothers (or cousins) as examples. If Jesus had been married would he not also have mentioned him as an example?

Who was Mary Magdalene?
The first mention of Mary Magdalene by name is by Luke:

The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources. Luke 8:2,3

She is called Mary Magdalene presumably because she came from the town of Magdala in the province of Galilee on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. There were other women known to the disciples whose name was Mary so possibly this was used to identify her.
Mary Magdalene is also mentioned by name by all four of the canonical Gospel writers as being one of the women who was present at the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. They were the first to know that Jesus had risen from the dead and they were the ones to give the news to the other disciples. The following is from Matthew, but the others are similar:

Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

When Jesus was declared dead by the soldiers, Joseph of Arimathea asked for his body in order to bury it in his own new tomb:
He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. Matthew 27:55,61

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week (Sunday) was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. ....The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, He has been raised from the dead.......So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Matthew 28:1-8

Luke’s account shows the reaction of the disciples when the women told them that Jesus had risen:

Now it was Mary Magdalene and, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, and he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened. Luke 24:10-12

If the men of the Church had tampered with the words of Scripture one would think that they would have also changed this passage. The men (except for Peter) didn’t believe the story because, after all, it was just an idle “woman’s tale” and who would believe women? It makes the disciples look rather foolish that they did not believe the women when later, as the Church teaches, the women were right
It has been said (although not in the book, The Da Vinci Code), that Mary Magdalene would not have been able to claim Jesus' body if she were not his wife. But in the gospel story it is Joseph of Arimathea who goes to the authorities to ask for Jesus' body. This was a special case as usually the corpses of those crucified were not buried but left to hang on the crosses. The women, in fact, were worried about how they would have access to the tomb because of the stone closing the tomb. When they arrived they found it had been rolled away already.

The Gospel of John has an additional story in which Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone:

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white.... They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She
said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him,. and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to the Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord.” and she told them that he had said these things to her. John 20:11-18

In all there are twelve references to Mary Magdalene in the four Gospels (more than the references to some of the apostles). All we know from these gospels is that Jesus cast out seven demons from her, she was present with other women at the death of Jesus, she and other women went to the tomb and found it empty on Sunday, they went to tell the other disciples what they had seen. In one of the gospels, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone and speaks with her and tells her to go and tell the disciples that she has seen him. In John’s account she is the first person to meet with the risen Christ; surely a great honour. Again, if the Scriptures had been tampered with by the Church 200-300 years later, one would think they would also remove this passage. Although there is nothing in it which suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, it does put her in the privileged position of being the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection. In this passage, she calls Jesus, Rabboni or teacher. If Jesus were her husband it is hardly the greeting she would use when she sees that Jesus is alive!
St. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), who lived around the time of the Council of Nicaea, wrote a sermon which praised Mary Magdalene and the other women for their care of Jesus:

Let us men imitate the women; let us not forsake Jesus in temptations. For they, for Him, even [though when he was] dead, spent so much and exposed their lives, but we neither feed Him when hungry, nor clothe Him when naked, but seeing Him begging, we pass Him by.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily LXXXVIII.

This praise would hardly have been written by someone who was trying to keep quiet about Mary Magdalene and any rôle she might have played in the story of Jesus.
Did the Church conduct a “smear campaign” to label Mary Magdalene as a prostitute in order to mask her real role as an apostle? There are three other women who have sometimes been linked with Mary Magdalene by the Church in the past. We will examine the stories of these women as they appear in the gospels.
The first “other Mary” is called Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus. These three lived in a place called Bethany. There were apparently two places called Bethany but John says, Bethany was near Jerusalem (John 11:18) so it is not near Magdala in the north and therefore not in the district of Galilee.
Luke tells the story of Jesus and his disciples’ visit to the home of Martha and Mary. Martha was busy serving them and Mary sat and listened to Jesus’ teaching. Martha resented the fact that her sister Mary left all the work for her while she sat by but Jesus said to Martha:

Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her. Luke 10:41

The only other gospel writer to mention this Mary by name is John. He tells the story that Lazarus is sick. The two sisters send word to Jesus asking him to come and heal their brother. Jesus delays and Lazarus dies. When Jesus does come he raises Lazarus from the dead.. It is John who identifies this Mary as the woman who anointed Jesus:

Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair.
John 11:2

This “anointing” occurred after the raising of Lazarus but John identifies this Mary to his readers after the fact. He tells the story later and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also have almost identical stories but they do not name the woman.[12] Jesus is eating a meal at the home of Simon the Pharisee (or the Leper[13] in Matthew and Mark). John instead says that the dinner is at the home of Lazarus:

Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair. John 12:1-3

Judas Iscariot, the disciple who was about to betray him, objected to the “wasting” of the expensive perfume and said it could have been sold to help the poor. He apparently did not care for the poor but was the treasurer of the disciples and used to steal from the purse. Jesus defended her:

Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you but you do not always have me. John 12:7-8.

Luke says she is a “sinful woman” but does not use her name:

Now the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him –that she is a sinner.” Luke 7:40

Jesus tells the Pharisee a story about forgiveness and says that those who have been forgiven much will love much; those who have been forgiven little, will love only a little:

Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven. Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” John 7:44-50

The third woman is the “woman caught in adultery”. This woman is not named and is not identified with any other woman. Her story is told only in the Gospel of John:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." John 8:3ff

It is true that the Catholic Church has over the years identified these women as one woman. That is, Mary Magdalene was the woman who anointed Jesus, the woman caught in adultery and also one of the women who was present at the crucifixion and a witness to the resurrection of Jesus. It was probably not out of spite, however, that this was done but in order to simplify the multiplicity of “Marys”. Passion plays in the Middle Ages identified Mary Magdalene and the woman caught in adultery as the same person. Gregory the Great (ca 540-604 AD) identified Luke’s “sinful woman” with Mary Magdalene. Biblical scholars today believe that it is unlikely they are the same person but the connection lives on. In The Passion of Christ we see Mary Magdalene thinking back with gratitude to the scene when she was dragged before Jesus and instead of supporting her accusers, he forgives her sins. However, in the new version of the Lectionary (1969)[14] the Church has changed the readings for July 22 (the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene) to include only those which definitely refer to Mary Magdalene therefore leaving the question open whether she was any of the other women.
Even if the Church identified Mary Magdalene with “the sinful woman” they have also declared her a “saint’. Her character was not blackened anymore than any of the other men and women in the gospel stories. All were sinners and because they believed in Jesus and his power to save them, they became saints. If the Church did want to hide that she was meant by Jesus to be the Head of his Church, it would have been easier to leave her name out of their Scriptures altogether. Instead they declared her a Saint and celebrate her feast day every year on July 22. Some churches have been named in her honour of her.
No one knows for sure what happened to Mary Magdalene after the crucifixion. There is one legend that she and some others went to France and there is another story that she went to Ephesus with the Virgin Mary and John and was later betrothed to John. The Church does not say either is true as there is no definite evidence. However, there are two monasteries in France which claim to have relics of Mary Magdalene: the Association Jerusalem at Vezelay and The Dominican Fathers, Hôtellerie in La Saint-Baume. Anyone can visit these places and they are mentioned in a book written by a Catholic about places of pilgrimage.[15] It doesn’t seem to be a very good cover up or smear campaign!

What about Leaonardo’s painting?
The painting “The Last Supper” is tempera on a plaster wall (not a fresco as Brown claims) in the refectory of the church Santa Maria del Grazie in Milan. It was commisioned by Dominicans and was painted by Leonardo da Vinci between 1452 and 1519. As previously mentioned it portrays the moment when Jesus announces that one of them (the disciples present) will betray them.

Truly, truly, I say unto you, one of you will betray me. John 13:21.

The reaction of the apostles can clearly be seen showing Leonardo’s gift of revealing the inner emotions of his subjects.
The claim is made in The Da Vinci Code that the disciple to the right of Jesus is a woman, that is, Mary Magdalene. The identity of this person has historically been that it is John, the disciple. In fact, a 16th-century copy of the painting is in the small church of Ponte Capriasca near Lake Lugano in Italy. On the fresco are the names of the twelve apostles, naming the figure in question as John. Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel point out that, “ The figure undoubtedly is effeminate, as Leonardo depicted the youthful John in the early fifteenth-century Florentine style”.[16] It is also true of Leonardo’s painting of St. John the Baptist done ca. 1413-1416. Teabing explains to Sophie that Peter is making a threatening motion toward Mary Magdalene “slicing his blade-like hand across her neck.” [17] But as the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax point out, if that were so, why is the person (John or Mary Magdalene) leaning trustingly toward Peter? It does not seem the pose of someone who was being threatened.[18]
Elizabeth Lev, who teaches art history at Duquesne University’s Rome campus says, “John is portrayed, as is common in many Renaissance paintings, as the "student”. A favored follower, a protégé or disciple, is always portrayed as very youthful, long-haired and clean-shaven; the idea being that he has not yet matured to the point where he must find his own way. Throughout the Renaissance, artists portray St. John in this fashion....To the Renaissance artist the only way to show St. John was as a beardless youth, with none of the hard, determined physiognomy of men. The 'Last Supper' of Ghirlandaio and Andrea del Castagno show a similarly soft, young John....Of course, if St. John were really Mary Magdalene, we may well ask which of the apostles excused himself at the critical moment.” [19]

Is there an agenda behind the book?
Does the author of The Da Vinci Code (and the authors of his sources) have a reason for accusing the Church of a cover up of Mary Magdalene’s “true identity”? Today there are a number of feminists (most of them in America) who think that the Catholic Church should allow women to be priests. They have set out to prove that the Catholic Church has discriminated against women and held women back for centuries. One might ask them if any of the world’s religions allows women to be in a teaching or leadership role. It is not just Catholics who do not allow women clergy and it is only recently that “some” Protestant denominations allow women to be “preachers”.
Islam does not have female Imams, Jews do not have women rabbis (apparently, this has recently changed) and Buddhists have female nuns (as do Catholics) but not in leadership or teaching roles. In fact in most cultures of the world (and not only in religions) women have held subordinate roles to men. Only recently have women been in leadership roles in the secular world. Why single out Catholics for the accusation? The accusations seem particularly malicious- these writers seem to really hate the Catholic Church.
Ironically, Protestants accuse the Catholic Church of making too much of one woman, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and raising her to be almost equal to Jesus. Catholics honour her because she is the Mother of Jesus and he gave her to the Church as our Mother when He was on the cross. She is not thought of as divine and she is to be honoured but not worshipped. She is a model for Christians as she obeyed God and without her obedience our salvation could not have been accomplished. Surely one who was chosen to be the Mother of the Savior deserves special attention and devotion. In fact, Luke records Mary’s words,

All generations will call me blessed. Luke 1:49

and the words of her relative, Elizabeth:

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? Luke 1:42,43

Does the Church discriminate against women?
It is a generally thought that Jesus treated women better than they were treated in the culture of the time. The story of the woman taken in adultery is a good example. The men who brought her to Jesus were ready to stone her – they were not Christians, but Jews. Actually the law of Moses said that both the man and the woman were to be stoned, not just the woman. So the Jews in the time of Jesus were not keeping their own law ie the Law of Moses.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

In this case it seems the man was not being punished. Jesus did not say that the woman had not sinned but he forgave her sin and told her to sin no more. The men, believing that only God can forgive sins, were shocked that this “man” said he forgave her sin!
The early Church, too, treated women more fairly than they had often previously been treated. Although it is true that the major evangelizers and preachers mentioned are men, there are also women mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, the story of the early Church. An example is Priscilla (or Prisca), a woman who is mentioned several times along with her husband.

There he [Paul] met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Acts 18:2

The couple taught as a team as we see in the following passage:

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Acts 18:24-26

They are again mentioned in the letter of Paul to the Romans as he sends greetings:

Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Romans 16:3

But there are other women mentioned whose names are not linked with those of a husband:

In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor. About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. Lydda was near Joppa; so when the disciples heard that Peter was in Lydda, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Please come at once!”

Peter went with them and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them. Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He gave her his hand and she sat up. Acts 9:36-41

St. Paul in his teaching told men to treat women with respect. Although he told women they were to be “subject to their husbands” and “the husband is the head of the wife just as the Christ is the head of the church” he also instructed men:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her....husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Ephesians 5:25,28-29.

St. Paul asks the Church in Philippi to help the women who have worked with him:

I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women [Euodia and Syntyche] for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers. Philippians 4:2-3

Ironically it is in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas where a comment that is very derogatory to women is found:
Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Gospel of Thomas 114

There is no remark which even comes close to such a demeaning view of women in the canonical gospels and it is difficult to believe that Peter and Jesus spoke this way about women. And yet feminists say that the gnostic gospels were suppressed by the Church because they do not want the the true position of women to be known!

The Catholic Church has remained adamant that it will not ordain women as priests. It is not the aim of this book to investigate the reasons for this. Suffice it to say that this is not because the Church teaches that women are inferior to men. It does teach that the rôles of women and men are different but equal in importance. Although Jesus had many women followers who supported him in his mission, he chose men as his apostles, trained and commissioned them to carry on that mission. In the Mass the priest acts as the person of Christ (in persona Christi) But women have not been left out of the work of the Church. Each person has their responsibility within the Church: priests, religious (Brothers and Sisters in special Orders), married couples and single persons. For hundreds of years Catholic Sisters have managed hospitals and schools all over the world and today there are women who teach in Catholic universities (and undoubtedly even teach future priests). Notably, although only in recent years, the Church has declared several of its women saints as Doctors of the Church, indicating the importance of their teachings. This puts them beside such “greats” as St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Thomas Aquinus! These women are: St. Therese of Avila (1515-1582), St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), and St. Therese of Liseaux (1873-1897). St. Catherine of Siena is well-known for essentially telling the Pope at that time (who was living in France instead of Rome) to “Be a man, and go back to Rome where you belong.”
It must be admitted that it has been women down through the ages who were (and are) often treated unfairly by men and are in the most vulnerable position. Women are beaten by their husbands, are victims of rape and human trafficking. They have been kept in low paying jobs, treated as objects and only in recent history have been recognized as "persons" and allowed to own property and vote for their governments. It is also true that there have been individuals in the Church that have treated women unfairly, not because they were Catholics but because they were men. This is not to say that women sometimes treat men badly, too, using them for their own means. Since this tension between men and women seems to be true in all cultures, it is unfair to blame it on the Catholic Church. A more reasonable explanation is that the sin first committed by Adam and Eve (the disobedience to God's command not to eat the fruit of one of the trees in the garden) is the real culprit. The perfect companionship which was meant to be between men and women, was marred by that first, original sin causing instead competition, rivalry for power and misunderstanding between the two sexes. If this is the case, then the wiping out of this sin by the death of Jesus and forgiveness of our sins brings reconciliation, not only with God, but also between men and women as well as all peoples of the world.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:23

[1]Olson, Carl and Meisel, Sandra, op.cit. p.39
[2] Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday. 2003 p. 370.
[3] Wouk, Herman. War and Remembrance. New York: Pocket Books. 1978.
[4] da Vinci means “from the town of Vinci” (in Tuscany, Italy) and so the artist would never have been referred to as only “da Vinci” but always “Leonardo from Vinci”. Brown mistakenly calls him Da Vinci in his novel.
[5] Brown, Dan. op.cit. p. 251.
[6] Jones, A.H.M., Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, p.73 quoted in Olson and Meisel, op.cit. p. 138.
[7] The first three gospels are called the synoptic gospels meaning that the stories coincide more closely than that of John. The stories do not agree exactly, just at witnesses of an event today do not always exactly agree on what happened. That they are not identical is evidence that they are genuine for it is more likely that witnesses will not remember things exactly the same. If they were “made up” or tampered with, they would be identical.
[8]Koester, Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co. 1982. page 11.
[9]The Dead Sea Scrolls, also mentioned by Brown, however, were all books of the Old Testament, none were from the New Testament and so do not mention Jesus.
[10] Koester, Helmut. op.cit.
[11]This is from the discussion by Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel, op.cit. p. 95
[12] It has been suggested that Luke who does not mention her by name is protecting her identity as she is still alive. John, whose gospel is written later, mentions her by name as she has already died.
[13]A leper was someone with a skin disease, not necessarily leprosy.
[14] The Lectionary is the selection of Scriptures which are read each Sunday during Mass.
[15]Wright, Kevin J. Europe’s Monastery and Convent Guesthouses.p. 119, p. 198.
[16]Olson, Carl and Miesel, Sandra, op.cit. p. 269.
[17] Brown, Dan. op.cit. p. 269.
[18] Olson, Carl and Miesel, Sandra, op.cit. p. 271
[19] Lev, Elizabeth. Leonardo’s Real Intention, Zenit Daily Dispatch 2/12/2004. Print Article

References

Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. (Thai) Bangkok: Amarin Publishers. 2004

Jones, A.H.M., Constantine and the Conversion of Europe. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1978.

Koester, Helmut. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Vol. 2. New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1980.

Lev, Elizabeth. Leonardo’s Real Intention Zenith Daily Dispatch. 2/12/2004.

Olson, Carl E. and Sandra Miesel. The Da Vinci Hoax. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2004.

Wouk, Herman. War and Remembrance. New York: Pocket Books. 1978.

Wright, Kevin J. Europe’s Monastery and Convent Guesthouses. Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications. 2000.

Websites

www.newadvent:com The Catholic Encyclopedia and Writings of the Church Fathers are available at this website.

www.christianitytoday.com

www.ignatiuspress.com

www.zenit.org/english