Posted on 10/01/2009 6:29:50 AM PDT by NYer
Q: Our new next-door neighbors have a 14-month-old daughter. They’re Catholics, but I just found out that they still haven’t had their daughter baptized yet! When our own children were born over 30 years ago, we had them baptized when they were just a couple of weeks old. Aren’t you required to have your children baptized quickly like that any more? –Frances
A: The Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation has not changed. Christ Himself, after His Resurrection, couldn’t have spoken more clearly about the need for baptism, when He commanded the Apostles to go forth and baptize all nations (Matt. 28: 19-20). As the Catechism teaches, “through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God” (CCC 1213 ). It is only logical that Catholic parents should want to have their newborn children baptized as soon as possible, to free them from original sin and make them members of the Church.
As we have seen in this space so many times before, canon law follows theology. So it isn’t at all surprising to find that canon 867.1 states that parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks after birth. And the very next paragraph, canon 867.2 , adds that if the child is in danger of death, he is to be baptized immediately.
Thus it should be clear that waiting for months, or even years, to have one’s child baptized is not only not in keeping with the Church’s theological teaching, it is also contrary to canon law. It is difficult to imagine a legitimate reason why Catholic parents, who truly believe in basic tenets of our faith like original sin and God’s grace, would fail to arrange for their children to be baptized as soon as possible.
Ironically, it may be that the wonderful medical advances of the last several decades have inadvertently led many Catholic parents to lose the traditional sense of urgency about having their newborn children baptized. For centuries, the Church’s teaching about the importance of baptism for salvation dovetailed neatly with the fear of many parents that their newborn might not live very long, and so both supernatural and natural reasons tended to push parents to have their children baptized as quickly as they could. If you have ever read the biography of a medieval saint, or if done genealogical research on your own family members in centuries past, you might very well have come across an instance where someone was baptized the day after his birth, or even sooner. In fact, it isn’t necessary to dig so far back in the historical past to find examples of this: in 1927, Pope Benedict XVI himself was baptized the same day that he was born.
This practice was, of course, logically consistent with Catholic doctrine. Given the extraordinarily high rates of infant mortality in generations past, and the fear that an infant might die before original sin had been wiped from his soul, what Catholic parent wouldn’t rush a newborn child to the parish church for baptism as soon as possible?
While there still is always some risk that a child may not survive, nowadays the fear that a newborn infant might not make it is hardly so great as before, especially here in the US. At the same time, baptisms have become big family/social events, when relatives fly into town and there is often a big family get-together after the ceremony. Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this; in fact, we do well to maintain our awareness of the importance of such an event by celebrating the occasion. But unfortunately, the desire to have all the family present at a child’s baptism can naturally lead to postponing the sacrament until everyone is able to make it. While parents are waiting for this or that relative to have a free weekend to travel, their new baby remains in original sin.
There are other factors which now sometimes lead parents to put off having their new child baptized. As we saw back in the June 21, 2007 column , it is standard practice these days in the US for parishes to require parents to attend an evening class (or series of classes) before their child is baptized. This is designed to ensure that the parents truly intend to raise their child in the Catholic faith—an intention that must be present if the priest is to agree to perform the baptism (c. 868.1 n. 2 ). Occasionally I have heard parents complain that they can’t have their new baby baptized until they attend this class, and that in their parish, the class is held only once a month. But in every single case, I have found that these complaining parents had made no effort whatsoever to inquire about the requirements for their infant’s baptism ahead of time. Since parents obviously are aware for months in advance that they will be having a baby, it is difficult to understand their failure to do this. Why not arrange to attend the class a month or two before the child’s expected birth-date, so that it will be possible to have the baptism soon afterwards?
Many parishes do an excellent job of publicizing the need for all parents to attend the baptism class, and class dates are announced well in advance. Others could probably do a better job of instructing their parishioners about the obligation of all parents to have their children baptized soon after birth. I have personally seen a disturbing pattern in many Catholic Hispanic communities, where children are routinely baptized when they are apparently two or three years old, if not older! If their parents had fallen away from the faith, and just recently returned to the Church, this of course would be an entirely understandable explanation for the delay. But if these families are regularly practicing Catholics, it appears that the pastor and parish catechists would do well to remind parents more forcefully and more often that by delaying their child’s baptism, they are leaving that child in original sin. If, God forbid, tragedy strikes and such a child suddenly dies, he leaves this world without the sacramental graces gained from baptism—and by his parents’ choice.
Another, more abstract factor that may cause some new parents to wrongly conclude that there is no need to rush to baptize their child, is the fallout from the fairly recent theological statement from the Vatican concerning Limbo . In 2007, many media outlets wrongly declared that Pope Benedict XVI had “done away with Limbo.” Even the most sincere journalist could perhaps be forgiven for being confused about what the statement actually meant! In its 2000-year existence, the Catholic Church has never made a definitive, authoritative statement explaining exactly what happens to infants who died before being baptized. Since they themselves are completely innocent, it seems absurd to conclude that God damns them to hell; although no less a theologian than St. Augustine really did reach this conclusion 1600 years ago, it was, understandably, not a position subsequently embraced officially by the entire Church. At the same time, the Church teaches that baptism is necessary to enter Heaven, since we must first be wiped clean of original sin and made children of God before we can be with Him there. It is thus a quandary with which theologians long have had to grapple, and the conclusion that there must be some third place (dubbed “Limbo”) was reached as a result. In Limbo, they said, the souls of unbaptized children enjoy some degree of happiness, but they are deprived of the Beatific Vision of God because they are still in original sin. This is not a teaching that can be found anywhere in revelation; rather, it is a logical conclusion of the Church’s teaching on baptism.
In the mid-2000’s, the International Theological Commission (ITC)—a team of theologians chosen from all over the world by the Pope to serve together as a joint committee of experts—was tasked with studying the issue of what happens to infants who die without the grace of baptism. The issue was not merely a theoretical, academic one: questions have been raised repeatedly about the fate of those millions upon millions of children who are killed by abortion. And what about those embryos which are created through in-vitro fertilization, and later discarded in the lab as superfluous? The Church needed to examine the issue more closely.
In their report—which was approved by the Pope—the ITC provided no magic answer to this difficult theological question. It reiterated traditional Catholic teaching when it asserted that “the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism is proclaimed and professed as integral to the Christian faith understanding” (66 ), and it did a beautiful job of tracing the historical development of the belief in Limbo, the existence of which “is not a dogmatic definition” (38 ). The ITC emphasized that there is no need for such a place necessarily to exist at all, since “God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred” (82 ) if He so wishes. In other words, God is not bound by the sacraments; He can, if He so wishes, freely allow the soul of an unbaptized infant into His presence in Heaven. Thus the ITC stressed the need for hope and trust in the mercy of God, since “the point of departure for considering the destiny of these children should be the salvific will of God” (41 ).
This report could too easily be misinterpreted as saying that there is no need to baptize our children, since God will allow them into Heaven anyway. But the report definitely does not exonerate parents whose children die without baptism, when the parents have not made an effort to have the baby baptized promptly. Thus it cannot be used as an excuse for failing to have a newborn infant baptized as quickly as the parents reasonably can.
True, there are tragic situations where a newborn dies unexpectedly in the first few hours or days of his birth; if the parents had been planning to have him baptized soon, it is certainly difficult to fault them for not being fast enough! But it is a very different matter when a child of several months, or even years, dies without having been baptized, solely through the negligence of his parents. New parents need to keep in mind—and to be reminded—of the incredible spiritual responsibility they bear toward their newborn children, who must depend on their parents to ensure that they are relieved of the burden of original sin so that they may someday see God face to face.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I would rather have children see a limited amount of foul language than see some of the unbridled hatred that exists on some of the RF debates.
And for the record I am not suggested that I have never made any hateful posts on here, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't want young children to see it.
I never said anything of the kind. This is EXACTLY what I mean!
I am happy to contemplate without understanding, so happy that I think some insist on having a pat formula right away and miss the scope of the mystery.NOTHING in this implies that anything is absolutely uncertain, or even that I will ALWAYS be happy to contemplate without understanding. Yet the argument against is based on the most extreme of a range of interpretations which might be made of what I said.
Again and again I have seen people (it's endemic among co-alcoholics, for instance) force things to solution and force problems into categories which end up exacerbating them or making them impossible to solve.
I think the verse I cited from Phillipians is precisely a verse which indicates an important truth and yet defies understanding. We a re talking about God, an incomprehensible mystery, and the human soul and will, which are at least MOSTLY incomprehensible. None of our language and categories of thought are going to be entirely adequate to the task set before us.
This link may assist you in determining what might have been construed as potty language.
First, I found out where I went awry in my post. And sitetest is correct: I used a reference that was inappropriate. I understand that this was wrong.
We actually may be getting somewhere now, however. You make note that it is immaterial whether God is “like the rest of us” and waits for time to unfold and show Him He was correct (or possibly not) OR whether it happens exactly as He knows. You say I may hold “which ever notion” I prefer. And I may be overly concerned about the distinction.
There is a sore spot...We don’t agree on just how different a “God” these two notions make Him out to be. Presumably Rome agrees with you, that this is not a “big deal.” The rest of us think this is monumental. This goes to the nature of God, His sovereignty, His transcendence, His difference from us fallen, broken humans. We think even the indifference impugns His character and His holiness. For that we wish to distance ourselves from the “familiarity” that Rome holds by thinking God would be anything like his sinful creatures. We actually think that such thinking is part of our fallenness. Made in His image notwithstanding.
And, no, we cannot “junk all our Bibles”. This is the place where we find the severity of this matter set out as non-negotiable. Just as Paul argued that if I depend upon “circumcision” as an immaterial “add on” to Christ, then I really have not understood salvation, at all. We contend the same thing applies to recognizing Who is intitiating salvation. And we notice all of the trace elements accompanying those that hold that it really doesn’t matter.
Thank you for your commentary on what I should and should not hold. But, it convinces me all the more that the Roman view is too man-centered and likely not a gospel at all. This, incidentally, is what really fired up the Reformation (Luther’s brouhaha with Erasmus about the Bondage of the Will). Perhaps we could have another and clarify who really thinks what is important?
And, my apologies about my remark concerning your pension.
You have seen “co-alcoholics” do this?
Have a nice day, my FRiend.
Ahem
;-)
Have a good one. I'm off to engage in cultic and superstitious behavior.
and it is not despite towards fundies, it is pity ofr your ignorance of Jesus, Greek, The scriptures etc....
You betcha! I also saw it among some students with learning disabilities. It was LIKE (I'm still not confident about this) their previous bad experience in being shot down despite their best efforts led them to stab blindly at an answer rather than do the slow methodical cranking of the algorithm which was far more likely to lead them to the correct answer.
I often think about sailing versus power-boating, and about herding sheep. Sailing is all about yielding to powers far greater than oneself, but doing so in a way which gets one where one wants to go. And moving sheep is about a careful gauging of one's position relative to them, about slow and gentle application of what I thought of as "pressure" (the"pressure" of moi the shepherd.)
Brute force can solve some problems. Other problems it renders insoluble.
Oops.I'm sounding like Yoda again. Off to Church must go I.
I don’t think Mr. Rogers is ignorant. I find his learning impressive.
We actually may be getting somewhere now, however. You make note that it is immaterial whether God is “like the rest of us” and waits for time to unfold and show Him He was correct (or possibly not) OR whether it happens exactly as He knows. You say I may hold “which ever notion” I prefer. And I may be overly concerned about the distinction.
No no nononononono I didn't say that you were overly concerned about the difference. I just meant that with respect to the point I was making it seemed to me to be "controlled" for that difference. Either way the conclusion would be the same.
And I SHO didn't mean that God Might be incorrect. (The only issues I have with Him are the design of the human knee and the location of the prostate gland. Other than that, I think he gets 100% Just sayin'. Well, the human back could stand some tinkering, and sometimes the sinuses ....) I think God currently (from HIS POV) sees the end of the world. For US it's FOREseeing. For HIM, it's seeing.
I am SO outta here!
Oh...you get to the “correct” answer by “slow methodical cranking of the algorithm” and all of the co-alcoholics end up wrong because they just “stab blindly”?
That is precisely how we determined Rome is wrong...slow, methodical listening to the Bible instead of buying the party line. Rome stabs blindly at the answer, apparently because they are “co-alcoholics”. This seems harsh, but whatever. We invite anyone listening to come out of her, if you can.
No, certainly it can apply to people who have heard the gospel and refuse to believe. I don’t think it applies to believers however. The Bible seems to me to say that those who will have part in the first resurrection, will not be subject to the judgment of those at the second resurrection.
Since the parable of the sheep & goats clearly refers to the 2nd coming, and the judgment which leads to condemnation, I think it is probably referring to that 2nd resurrection. I suppose it’s possible the first part of the parable refers to the first resurrection, and the second part refers to the second resurrection, but I doubt this because it mentions that both groups are gathered before him and the separation or judgment appears to be happening at the same time, not separated by a thousand years, as stated in Revelation.
Some people do not care to ever study or research for themselves what God's word says and instead rely on whatever they are told by their priest. I know this because I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic. I was baptized, had first Holy Communion, attended Catechism, Catholic school and was confirmed. Oh, no! I can hear it now...that person's an ex-Catholic - that explains everything!
But it doesn't even begin to tell you who I am nor why I made the decision to leave the church. Your overwrought post is chock full of recriminations against the “reformists” and any person today who is not a member of the “Only True Church”. Your post implies a kind of sneering, braggadocio of which I am quite familiar. The attitude of “we alone have the hold on truth”.
This is quite an insult considering we claim the same Scriptures (nearly), the same founder - Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the same faith in the one true God, maker of heaven and earth, in the person of the trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary as foretold in the Scriptures. We believe he will come again in glory and that he will judge all. There are so many things we have in common. Where the differences lie most loudly are when the Catholic Church proclaims dogma that contradicts Scripture. In the RC’s eyes this is impossible because you believe Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide the church so therefore if the “Church” says something is truth, it MUST be so unquestionably.
I believe that all who have accepted the gift of eternal life through faith in the sacrificial payment Christ made on the cross will be saved and that this gift, once sincerely accepted (as only God sees the heart of man)is never revoked. We become children of God and members of the body of Christ which is the true church. We have his promised Holy Spirit indwelling us and he will never leave or forsake us. We can have the assurance of eternal life because God is holding on to us, we are not holding onto him. He created us in his image to do good works. He enables us to choose good over evil through the new birth. He puts within us the desire to please him and to live our lives to bring him honor.
Why must interpretation of God's word be soley the province of a hierarchy? Did God not reveal himself to us all through his inspiration to the prophets and preserve his word through the entire history of mankind? Did he not give us his Spirit to illuminate the truth in our hearts? Did God not intend that ALL should know his revealed truth?
I belong to a spiritual "ecclesia". It is the body of Christ and this faith goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.
This is what D-Boy believes from his post.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2265493/posts?page=42#42
D-boy-””Pharaoh was a pagan monster. But, it doesn’t mean that we should call these men good. It is a recognition that they were set in place by God, and in the case of Obama, we are still to submit to the government””
This means according to D-boys slow methodical listening of the Bible that God wants there to be pagan leaders of countries . Hitler, obama ,Nero etc.. were somehow appointed by God and we should listen to them because d-boy’s slow, methodical listening to the Bible says it's what God wants us to be obedient to since He put them in command
This means that God wanted Jews to be tortured and abortion to be legal according to this logic of D- boy and his “slow and methodical” listening of the Bible that teaches us to submit to evil because appoints evil leadership.
The Bible in the hands of certain people is dangerous!
Quite sure these verses are in “your” Bible, too.
Daniel 4:17
This decision is by the decree of the watchers,
And the sentence by the word of the holy ones,
In order that the living may know
That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men,
Gives it to whomever He will,
And sets over it the lowest of men.’
Daniel 5:20
But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him.
Psalm 75:7
But God is the Judge:
He puts down one,
And exalts another.
Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
It isn't. But the oversight for it is. And why not? Probably the best answer I can give to your question is to point you in the direction of very nearly 500 years of doctrinal chaos at the hands of people asking the same question, probably with less sincerity than you have asked it.
You're half-right, I do detect a bit of "recrimination" in my post with regard to the so-called Reformers themselves, since they should have known better than to throw the baby out with the bathwater in those turbulent times. But I have no "recriminations" against their spiritual descendants today, who, for the most part, to paraphrase your words, "rely on whatever they are told by their minister."
The explanation of your self-described "play on words" regarding my screen name doesn't cut it with me. You clearly intended, with "Magisterium has spoken!", to imply an imperious attitude on my part that I do not believe I convey, do not intend, and seek to avoid in my dealings with my fellow human beings. I'll thank you to keep such mind-reading out of your future attempts at humor. My handle here is based on my deep respect and thankfulness for the teaching office of the Church; it has nothing to do with "me." That is why I made sure not to capitalize it.
Finally, if I convey a "sneering" tone, it is unintended, and, at any rate, I hope it is less evident than that of Saint Paul in the very 1 Corinthians passage I alluded to earlier on this thread. It just might be pointed-out, though, that an honest re-read of your own post (to which I am responding now) could, conceivably, make clear to you that the "appearance" of a sneering tone is not necessarily monopolized by myself.
I pray you have a blessed and grace-filled weekend.
An analogy involves two things which are alike IN SOME RESPECTS, but not in ALL respects. The similarity I see between some participants here and a 6th grade physics student in a class I taught long ago is that both reject the approach t hat works for the illusory and evanescent satisfaction of (a)avoiding anxiety or making one's exposure to it shorter in time; (b)thinking for a while that maybe they have the answer.
What is DIFFERENT is that slow, methodical cranking of the algorithm works for simple problems in Newtonian mechanics but not in getting to know God. Living with the Bible not only in study but in prayer for a LONG time seems more successful than any algorithm with theological stuff.
Excuse the plodding explanation but it seems that whenever I assume that someone is going to work with me to understand something, I end up arguing against ridiculous charges that have nothing to do with what I said.
If anyone thinks that minds will be changed by this kind of glib adversarialism, I'd like to say that he will be disappointed. I simply cannot take seriously the arguments of someone who argues not against what I think or believe but against something else. And if a person does that repeatedly, I cannot take him or his protestations of charity seriously either.
This begins to look like a game. Charges are made against Catholicism which bear little or no relationship to reality. When a Catholic responds by trying to explain how the charges are false, instead of dealing responsibly, as one would who really wants to deal in the truth, the false accuser just piles on more and more glib and false charges.
When I consider that I am actually conversing with people who, in the face of my actual experience and study, want to tell me not so much what I should believe but that I believe something I know perfectly well that I do not believe and my Church does not teach, I see that there really isn't much point in the conversation. In fact it's not a conversation at all.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“This means according to D-boys slow methodical listening of the Bible that God wants there to be pagan leaders of countries . Hitler, obama ,Nero etc.. were somehow appointed by God and we should listen to them because d-boy’s slow, methodical listening to the Bible says it’s what God wants us to be obedient to since He put them in command
This means that God wanted Jews to be tortured and abortion to be legal according to this logic of D- boy and his “slow and methodical” listening of the Bible that teaches us to submit to evil because appoints evil leadership.”
Or it means that God doesn’t want all of these things, but is powerless to prevent them. Which are you going with? A god that is that weak and impotent surely isn’t worthy of worship and adoration. This low view of the God of the universe is pathetic, and unfortunately, widely held today by professing Christians.
Catholic Christians follow this governing office -from the Catechism
The governing office
894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426
895 “The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.”427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.
896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and “form” of the bishop's pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, “the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children.... The faithful ... should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father”:428
Some excerpts from Libertas from Pope Leo XIII
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
“31. By the patrons of liberalism, however, who make the State absolute and omnipotent, and proclaim that man should live altogether independently of God, the liberty of which We speak, which goes hand in hand with virtue and religion, is not admitted; and whatever is done for its preservation is accounted an injury and an offense against the State. Indeed, if what they say were really true, there would be no tyranny, no matter how monstrous, which we should not be bound to endure and submit to.”
“39. But this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs, and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which We disprove the principle of separation of Church and State are conclusive; with this super-added, that it is absurd the citizen should respect the Church, while the State may hold her in contempt.”
from Immortal Dei
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html
“In the same way the Church cannot approve of that liberty which begets a contempt of the most sacred laws of God, and casts off the obedience due to lawful authority, for this is not liberty so much as license, and is most correctly styled by St. Augustine the “liberty of self ruin,” and by the Apostle St. Peter the “cloak of malice.”(23) Indeed, since it is opposed to reason, it is a true slavery, “for whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.”(24) On the other hand, that liberty is truly genuine, and to be sought after, which in regard to the individual does not allow men to be the slaves of error and of passion, the worst of all masters; which, too, in public administration guides the citizens in wisdom and provides for them increased means of well-being; and which, further, protects the State from foreign interference.”
From GAUDIUM ET SPES
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
“The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.
The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man's horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.
The Apostles, their successors and those who cooperate with them, are sent to announce to mankind Christ, the Savior. Their apostolate is based on the power of God, Who very often shows forth the strength of the Gospel on the weakness of its witnesses. All those dedicated to the ministry of God's Word must use the ways and means proper to the Gospel which in a great many respects differ from the means proper to the earthly city.
There are, indeed, close links between earthly things and those elements of man's condition which transcend the world. The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods. It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it. In this, she should make use of all the means-but only those-which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the general good according to the diversity oœ times and circumstances.”
“”Or it means that God doesn’t want all of these things, but is powerless to prevent them. Which are you going with?””
God gives us a free will He allows evil to exist ,but has nothing to do with cause of evil.
God is outside of time and everything is one NOW with God= who willed all things good in one NOW,thus there can be no evil in God,so the succession of evil starts from a free will,not from a plan by God.
God is still in control since we know evil has an end
From Saint Thomas Aquinas..
That in God there can be no Evil
ESSENTIAL being, and essential goodness, and all other things that bear the name of ‘essential,’ contain no admixture of any foreign element; although a thing that is good may contain something else besides being and goodness, for there is nothing to prevent the subject of one perfection being the subject also of another. Everything is contained within the bounds of its essential idea in such sort as to render it incapable of containing within itself any foreign element. But God is goodness, not merely good. There cannot therefore be in Him anything that is not goodness, and so evil cannot be in Him at all.
3. As God is His own being, nothing can be said of God that signifies participation. If therefore evil could be predicated of Him, the predication would not signify participation, but essence. Now evil cannot be predicated of any being so as to be the essence of any: for to an essentially evil thing there would be wanting being, since being is good.* There cannot be any extraneous admixture in evil, as such, any more than in goodness. Evil therefore cannot be predicated of God.
5. A thing is perfect in so far as it is in actuality: therefore it will be imperfect inasmuch as it is failing in actuality. Evil therefore is either a privation, or includes a privation, or is nothing. But the subject of privation is potentiality; and that cannot be in God: therefore neither can evil.
This truth also Holy Scripture confirms, saying: God is light, and there is no darkness in Him, (I John i, 5) Far from God impiety, and iniquity from the Almighty (Job xxxiv, 10).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.