OCR Text |
Show r I Hon-0atftolic Queries, and Jin$wer$ thereto.! (San Francisco Monitor.) In what way docs Christian Science conflict 'with the teachings of the Catholic church? Can a Catholic be treated by a Christian Scientist merely for health, jnovided he or she does not believe in their teachings? Can you in the face of such overwhelming evidence evi-dence deny the many cures wrought by Christian Scientists? The Catholic church regards Christian Science, with denial of a person god distinct from the g universe, ihe divinit'' of Jesus Christ, and every Christian dog-ma, as ?n essentially pagan system. Discovered in 1S0G by Mrs. Eddy of Boston, it was given to the world in 1875 as "the final revelation of the absolute principle of scientific being and of healing' in her work "Science and Health, with Kov to the Scriptures" (Joseph Armstrong, Dos-, ton, ed. 1001). ' Christian Science is a very striking example of that, inevitable tendency toward unbelief that characterizes char-acterizes the Protestant principle of private inter-. pretation; for while pretending, with many an- other false prophet (Mark xiii, 22), that the Bible ! is her ''sole teacher, guide and text -book" (pp. viii.-i J 4, 20), Mrs. Eddy perverts its meaning at every ; 6tep, and while quoting its words she gives them, without any warrtn whatsoever, a meaning which I; Tvill agree with her irrational mingling of Idealism, ' , Manicheism and Pantheism. The divinity of Christ f is absolutely deniedand his divine gospel becomes 8 mere system of metaphysical healing (pp. 32. 346, "63. 47S, 574, etc.). After reading Mrs. Eddy's book from cover to cover, one wonders how any rational man or woman could ever believe without with-out the shadow of proof in a pretended prophet, claiming absolute obedience, who cures by the mere reading of a book, or by absent treatment, functional func-tional or organic diseases (p. 135, 71, 443, 43). Much of the book is unintelligible; and therefore its author tells us that we may not hope to fathom its meaning. Such phrases as these are indeed incomprehensible: in-comprehensible: ''There is no physical science. Matter is nothing but mortal belief. Man is the compound idea of God. Gender is a quality, a characteristic of mind, not matter. Electricity is not a vital fluid, but the least material form of illusive consciousness a material mindedness" (pp. 21, 19, 471, etc.). Here are a few specimens of the new logic: 4If drugs are a part of God's creation, then drugs cannot can-not Je poisonous. If we live after death and are immortal, we must have lived before birth. If the soul sinned, it would be mortal. You say a boil is painful; but that is impossible, for matter without with-out mind is not painful" (pp. 50, 427. 464. 47). IMrs. Eddy refuses to be called a pantheist, but her own words convict her, if words mean any-I any-I ihing: "There can be but one Mind, because there I is but one God. In one sense God is identical with Mature. Soul or spirit signifies deity and nothing else. There is no finite soul or spirit. There is but one mind or intelligence. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter. Science reveals nothing spirit out of which to create matter. All is mind, and i jnind is God, soul is God, unchangeable, eternal" (pp. 465, 13. 462, 112, 7, 174). She holds the old Manichean doctrine that the material world is evil, and that therefore God is not its creator: 4To regard God as the creator of matter is not only to make him responsible for all disasters, physical and moral, but to announce him as their source" (p. 13; cf. 546, 174, 8). She renders religion impossible by denying a personal God distinct from the universe, the existence exist-ence of soul in the body, free will, sin, etc.: "The great mistake of mortals is to suppose that man is both matter and spirit. Soul or spirit signifies deity and nothing else. Will power is but an il-I il-I uion of belief the delusion of sin" (pp. 112, 462, ' I ' 4S(5- 10- She denies every fundamental dogma of Chris-j Chris-j lianity, v. g., ihe Trinity, the divinity of Jesus ! Christ, ihe fact of original and actual sin, the re demption, the exislence of a divine society to preach the Gospel, the sacramental system, the necessity ne-cessity of faith, grace, prayer, fasting, ihe resur- reel ion of the body, the last judgment, angels, 'I devils, eternal punishment. j "The theory of three persons in one God. i. e., I a personal Trinity, or tri-unity, suggests heath :n ; gods. Jesus was the highest human concept of a perfect man. He was not divine, but a mere healer i of the sick; the legend of the serpent, a myth, a dream narrative, sin is a delusion. That God's I wrath should be visited upon his beloved son is f divinely unnatural. Such a theory is man-made. I Chriinnity as Jesus taught it was not a creed. I The true science of God and man is no more super- I natural than is the science of numbers. Our Lord's h'rrt article of faith was healing. Our Baptism is I a purification -from all error. Our Eucharist is a spiritual communion with the one God. Faith is the acceptance of Christian Science. The new man' of Scripture is a Christian Scientist. Audible Au-dible prayer can never do the work of divine under-, under-, standing; prayer is unnecessary, as the All has al ready decreed what is good for us. Fasting is a fcnseless belief, the belief that material bodies rein re-in rn to dust here after rise up spiritual bodies is incorrect. No final judgment awaits mortals. Angels are not messengs but messages of the true idea of divinity. Evil or devil is not mind, is not truth, but error. Hell is mortal belief, I error, remorse, hatred (pp. 152, 50S, 47S, 32 5-3 519, 154, 100, 416, 468, 238, 327, 20, 492, 467, 5, h', 310, 454, IPC, 310, 1S7, 195, 4G5, etc.). Her denial of the evidence of the senses, the reality of matter, the facts gained by medical science sci-ence and surgery, the utter lack of coherency and system in her many contradictory statements, prove her Fystem to be as unscientific as it is irreligious and anti-Christian. "What we term the five physical physi-cal senses are simply beliefs of mortal mind. When an accident happens declare you are not hurt, and you will find the ensuing good effects to be in exact proportion to your disbelief in physics and your fidelity to God. The corporeal senses are the only sources of evil or error. Christian Science Sci-ence explains all cause and effect as mental, not j physical. There is no physical science. One disease dis-ease is no more real than another. All disease is cured by mind. Belief is all that ever enables a drug to cure mortal ailments. What is termed disease dis-ease does not exist. Science can heal the sick who are absent from their healer. Where there are fewer few-er doctors and less thought is given to sanitary subjects, sub-jects, there will be letter constitutions and less disease" dis-ease" (pp. 179, 365, 4S5, 7. 21, 69, f,7, 81, 71). How account for the growth of Christian Science? Sci-ence? Its followers are recruited for the most part from the ranks of those indiffcrcntist or unbelieving unbe-lieving Protestants who, ignorant of the first principles prin-ciples of Christianitv, are the ready victims of any new teaching. Again, this new phase of modern unbelief allows the unthinking mind to call itself Christian, while at the same time it does not demand de-mand the acceptance of the doctrines or moral principles the Savior taught. Further more, Mike errors of oilier times, it appeals to ihe suffering multitude who long for some panacea of disease, and care little for the method or cure. Witness in iour country the following gained by such "evident ' impostors as Dowie, Schlatter, and the millions spent annually in the fees of quacks. The financial finan-cial side of the movement is another factor in its growth, for it provides an easy way of practicing medicine. How account for its so-called cures? I recall two cures of the Christian Science kind one of a pretended operation in a large city hospital, which completely cured a woman of an internal (im- - - j aginary) disease of many months' standing; another an-other of a woman bedridden for years, who during the panic induced by a fire in her house recovered the Use of her limbs by the mere exercise of will power long dormant. So, frequently physicians have treated their wealthy hypochondriac patients on a harmless diet of bread pills and water, and daily discussed without a smile the marked progress prog-ress caused by their wonderful prescription. The many cures, especially in the nervous diseases dis-eases of women, wrought abroad in our generation by hypnotic suggestion at the hands of the scientific scien-tific graduates of the schools of Nancy and Paris, have made us realize more than ever before the influence in-fluence of the mind and the imagination over bodily bod-ily disease (Le Hynotisni Franc-Coconnier). Christian Chris-tian Science has adopted this child of modern therapeutics, and dressing it up in the clothes of unchristian and unscientific principles, endeavors by dint of vigorous and oracular assertion to win for it the reverence of its credulous following. We can safely challenge any of these modern curists to bring forward one authentic case proved by affidavits of reputable Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and infidel physicians in which the mind of a metaphysical healer has set a broken arm or leg, healed a cance or tumor, or effected the cure of any organic disease. As for healing the deaf, 'the dumb, the blind, the lame, leers only Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and ihe saints of the old law and the new, have worked such miracles. Indeed, we deem those who suffer the sick under their care to die for the want of roper medical at-tedance at-tedance to be guilty of criminal neglect, and if in their ignorance and superstition they do not realize real-ize their sin, the law of the state should, in Ihe interests of society, see to it that those dependent on such fanatics be publicly provided for, just as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty looks after children maltreated by their parents. No Catholic is warranted in having recourse to Christian Science healers for the cure of bodily di sease, because it is a grievous sin to encourage charlatanism or superstition in any form; and even if a real cure were certain. Catholics know they cannot deny Jesus Christ or his divine teachings teach-ings for any temporal benefit whatsoever. It is not allowed to do evil that good may come. The Catholic church teaches clearly the efficacy of prayer, but forbids her children to neglect the ordinary means at their disposal for the cure of disease, dis-ease, as irrational and sinful. Miracles are exceptional excep-tional things, and not the ordinary things, and not the ordinary law of God's providence. She quotes the words of Holy Writ: "Honor the physician, for the need thou hast of him. for the Most High hath created him. The skill of the physician shall lift up his head, and in the sight of great men he shall be praised. The Most High hath created cre-ated medicines out of the earth, and a wise man shall not abhor them. My son, in thy sickness neglect not thyself, but pray to the Lord, and He shall heal thee" (Ecclus. xxviii. 1-10). ' She declares iufalliby that Jesus Christ came to teach men the truth of God and save them from sin, and that he sent his apostles to preach and pardon in his name until the end of the world. Christian Science, which denies his divinity and his gospel, is to her a superstition against the first commandment of God. Why does the Catholic priest impose penances for sins already pardoned? Why do Catholics think the. can atone for their sins by fasting, prayers, etc.? Do you believe that you can add to the all-sufficient atonement of Christ? When God forgives the sinner, does he not Instantly free him from all deserved punishment pun-ishment at the same time.' as in the-case of the dying thief: "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Luke xxiii, 43)? After confession, the penitent is asked to perform per-form works of penance that he might better realize real-ize his guilt before God, and thereby pay the debt of temporal punishment still due 1o his forgiven sins. The Council of Trent declares that these penances make the sinner more careful for the future, fu-ture, substitute for his vices the contrary virtues, and prevent him from falling into more grievous sins (Sess. xiv, ch. viii). . Frequently the Scripture declares that. God may forgive the repentant sinner that is, free him from the guilt of sin and its eternal punishment without freeing from temporal punishment. Thus in the case of Adam (Wisdom x, 2; Gen. iii, 17-20), the rebellious Jews in the desert (Num. xiv, 20-23), Moses (Num. xx, 12; Deut. xxxii, 51, 52), David (II Kings xi, xii, xxiv), etc. David,, for example, having repented for his murder and adultery, was forgiven by God, and yet punished by the death of the child he loved. "I have sinned against the Lord. The Lord also hath taken away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, beceause thou hast given occasion to Ihe enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing the child that is born of thee shall surely die" (11 Kings xii, 13-14). Is it not strange to find Bible Christians denying deny-ing that 'the sinner may atone for the temporal punishment due his sins, when no doctrine is taught more clearly in the Scriptures? (Jones iii; II Paral. Chron.) xxxiii, 12, 13; Ecclus. iii,-33; I Dan. iv, 24; Luke, xi, 41). Catholics do not believe that any man or all men could ever satisfy for one grievous sin against God. One alone, who was true God and true man, Jesus Christ, satisfied for all the sins of the world. lie, according to Catholic dogma, is the only mediator; medi-ator; "for there one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ" (I Tim. ii, 5). But we believe that by the help of God's grace, which Jesus Christ died to gain, we can apply to ourselves the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, through the sacraments of baptism and penance. This is no way interferes with the infinite atonement atone-ment of God's only Son. "Neither is this satisfaction satis-faction which we discharge .for our sins so much our own as not to be Jesus Christ's, for we who can do nothing for ourselves, can do all things with the co-operation of him who strengthens us. Thus man hath not wherein to glory, -but all our glorying glory-ing is in Christ; in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we satisfy" (Trent., Sess. xiv, ch. i viii). As for the thief on the cross, it is not evident ' that he went instantly to heaven; for Catholics, j believing that Christ's soul immediately after his ) death went down to Limbo, to announce to the souls i there detained the glad tidings of the redemption ; (I Peter iii, 19), declare that paradise in this pas- ; sage does not mean heaven at all. But granted that it did, a miracle wrought by the Son of God as a sign of his exceeding great mercy and love for sinners, is not to be regarded as the general law of God's working, especially when the Scriptures ! in many other passages declare the contrary. Of ! course, Catholics believe that God may at any time remit the guilt 'of sin, and all punishment due there-unto, there-unto, just as "he does always in baptism, but wo say that is not the ordinary law of his providence, as taught by his Holy Scriptures and his infallible Church. , i |