Posts

Debunking the Debunkers

Here’s my latest article from the June issue of Catholic Insight magazine. Hope you like it!

Debunking the Debunkers

by Cale Clarke

Just as surely as the lillies bloom every spring, each Easter season brings with it some new theories about what really happened at the first Easter. Martin Luther’s dictum describing early Protestantism comes to mind: “There are as many interpretations as there are heads”. Here are a couple of this year’s takes:

First, on Holy Saturday, the National Post ran a piece about a new book by art historian (and amateur theologian) Thomas de Wesselow, The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection. And what, pray tell, is that secret? According to de Wesselow, the shroud really is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ – but get this: he thinks it was the shroud that the Apostles encountered after the death of Christ, not his resurrected body. Huh? So, when “doubting” Thomas stuck his hand in Jesus’ side, was he only wiggling his fingers through a hole in the sheet? Not sure this is the sort of stuff that inspires martyrdom.

And then there’s the perennial publicity hound Simcha Jacobovici (TV’s The Naked Archaeologist), who, along with James Cameron (whenever the latter is not tied up making bad movies about blue people or sinking boats), spends a lot of his time looking for the lost tomb of Jesus. It’s a project that has as much potential as the maiden Titanic voyage.

As real biblical scholar Craig Evans pointed out recently in The Huffington Post, the archaeological community scoffs at the idea that the tomb in the Jerusalem area that Jacobovici shows off in The Jesus Discovery belongs to Jesus of Nazareth. And, if Jesus’ bones are still in a tomb, then how does Jacobovici explain the fact that even the enemies of the early Christian movement say it’s empty? It seems as if The Naked Archaeologist has no clothes.

The fact is that the disciples claimed to have encountered the resurrected Jesus. People who days earlier had denied even knowing Jesus (like Peter) are, post-Easter, quite willing to lay down their lives for their conviction that Jesus lives. Skeptics, even persecutors like Saul the Pharisee (better known now as Paul the Apostle) claim to have had the same experience. After his death and burial, Jesus is said to have appeared to numerous individuals and groups of people over a 40-day period, including 500 people at one time (1 Corinthians 15:6). Forget about mass hallucinations – you can’t catch a hallucination like a common cold. And what these folks claimed was not even that they had seen a “vision” of Jesus – a category well accepted in Jewish circles.

No, what they claimed was not that they had seen a ghost, or even – sorry, Thomas de Wesselow – a shroud. They claimed to have experienced Jesus’ physical body, back from the dead. Transformed, yes, but still him, still sporting the crucifixion wounds as a type of I.D. Able to be touched, able to scarf down some food to make a point of his being corporeal (cf. Luke 24:36-43; Acts 10:41). A resurrection is a lot harder to prove than a vision. A “vision” of Jesus, encouraging the disciples to continue the mission, wouldn’t require an empty tomb. And preaching the resurrection in the very city where Jesus was crucified would have been impossible if the tomb were occupied. This is even more evident when one considers that the location of the tomb was no secret, not waiting thousands of years to be discovered by Cameron and Jacobovici – it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, the very council which condemned Jesus to death, and a known public figure.

Could the disciples have stolen the body? That was, after all, the explanation proffered by the enemies of the nascent Church as to how the tomb came to be empty. But this view overlooks an important fact: the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection. True, many have died (and continue to do so) for what they believe to be true – suicide bombers, for instance. But no one in their right mind willingly would give their life for what they knew to be false. If the disciples really had Jesus’ body locked in the trunk of a car somewhere, I doubt they’d be in a hurry to get themselves crucified upside-down, or sawed in two.

Whatever one’s theory is about what happened that first Easter, one ought to at least take into account all the known facts of the case. But, unfortunately for a gullible public, the Jacobovicis and de Wesselows of the world have never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Cale Clarke is the Director of The Faith Explained Seminars (TheFaithExplained.com), and the creator of The New Mass app.

/11 Comments/by

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast on The New Mass

Archbishop-Terrence-PrendergastWhen we set about creating The New Mass iPhone app, the very first person I called was Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa. He and I had met when we were presenters at a couple of conferences. He was also the only Canadian on the translating committee for the new English version of the Mass. Recently, he was interviewed by the National Post’s Charles Lewis on the importance of the new Roman Missal:

Q. Is it more sacred language?

A. There are different types of speech: for the pub, at work, on a television talk shows; and another more suitable for worship.  The early translation was more pedestrian, let us say; this one has a higher literary register, though still familiar, as is fitting for sons and daughters of God.

Q. Proponents of the new missal say if nothing else the new language will force people in the pews to think more about what they’re saying and think about what it means. Do you agree?

A. Yes, especially at first when the translation will be strikingly novel. I believe the people in the pews will adapt to the translation fairly quickly; however, the priests will need a bit more time and the laity will need to be patient with them.

When it comes to certain terms — for example, speaking of the death of Jesus “for many” rather than [the current] “for all” — it will be an apt opportunity for teaching and clarifying Church doctrine. Similarly with the statement in the Creed that says Jesus is “consubstantial” with the Father rather than “one in being.” People will wonder and puzzle over texts and this will give priests and deacons an opportunity to teach the nuances of the faith.

For the full interview, go here.

/7 Comments/by

Re: Vatican’s new Mass ‘elitist,’ priests say

Today’s National Post ran a front-page story about the upcoming new English translation of the Mass: “Vatican’s new Mass ‘elitist’, priests say”. These priests are based in Ireland, and my own Irish eyes weren’t exactly smiling when I read their views. They are, in a word, wrong – on so many levels.

Judging from the reaction we’ve received to The New Mass iPhone app, and to the talks I’ve given on the new translation in thefaithexplained.com seminar series, these guys are seriously mistaken. In my experience, once people have actually seen the new text, and have had the reasons for the changes explained to them, they are generally thrilled. Not only is the new translation more faithful to the official Latin text, but it does a superb job of highlighting the biblical allusions in the Mass.

The complaints of these priests are also unseemly for other reasons. They are, quite simply, poisoning the well for their own parishioners. In all likelihood, most of these people haven’t viewed the new Mass translation for themselves, but when they read an article in the media – quoting their own priests – bashing it to pieces, they can’t help but be negatively prejudiced against it. In my view, these priests are merely seeking to grab some ill-gotten attention for themselves, when they should be supporting the decisions of the hierarchy whom they (allegedly) serve. If they have legitimate concerns, fine. But let those be aired privately in meetings with the bishops, not in the secular media or the court of public opinion.

/3 Comments/by

Re: Anglicans to consider opening communion to unbaptized

Call it an Anglican communion confusion. Charles Lewis, writing in today’s National Post cover story, tells us that “Canadian Anglicans will hold discussions this spring about whether baptism is necessary for taking part in communion – questioning a requirement of Christianity that has existed for 2,000 years.”

The reason? Numbers are down! The Anglican communion in Canada has been bleeding members for years. According to the Post article, the organization is down to only 500,000 members, whereas it had 1.3 million only decades ago. The hope is that another attempted Anglican change of the rules of the game will attract more fans.

I’m reminded of the wise words of Peter Kreeft, who once noted that the Catholic Church is always being accused of trying to impose some sort of a draconian authority over its members, but the reality is that other Christian communities actually claim far, far more authority for themselves than does the Catholic Church.

How so? Kreeft says that these communities are constantly changing the teachings of Christ to suit their own needs and whims, but the Catholic Church does not – and cannot – do so. She simply doesn’t have the authority. She is not free to alter the teachings of her Lord. Kreeft says that “authority”, after all, means “author’s rights”. We are not the authors of Christ’s teaching, and we are not free to edit it – we’re only the mail carriers. Our job is simply to pass on the teaching of Christ intact to the next generation, unpopular though it may be.

But, even if Anglicans do open up their communion table to all, our Lord won’t be offended in the least. After all, Anglicans haven’t had valid Holy Orders for centuries. They may think they have a valid eucharist, but without validly ordained priests and bishops, it can never be the Eucharist – the true Body and Blood of Christ. Deep down, many Anglicans realize this, just as Cardinal John Henry Newman did before coming home to the Catholic Church. He noted that the leftover, and allegedly consecrated, communion elements from a service were summarily dumped in the trash. He realized that this could not possibly be the Eucharist the early Christians spoke of – no matter who gets to partake of it. And no amount of misguided marketing could ever change that fact.

/5 Comments/by