Sunday, November 29, 2009

DID MARY HAVE OTHER CHILDREN ASIDE JESUS? AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

INTRODUCTION
The text from Mark (Mark 3:31-35) has sparked off an ongoing controversy between Catholic and Protestant Scholars. At present, it even divides Catholics among themselves. In principle, we may not expert from this text a proof or a counterproof of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It simply says that Jesus was a ‘brother to James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon’ and that he had sisters among the inhabitants of Nazareth. This essay seeks to react to this assertion by raising arguments to disabuse the minds of people that Mary had Children after the birth of Jesus.
OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER OBJECTIONS
To begin with, those who think that Mary had children after Jesus and so deny the virginal conception raised three objections according to Bishop Osei Bonsu’ Book, Catholic Beliefs and Practice. Their basis is the infancy narratives of Matthew 1:25. “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the Angel had commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and called his name Jesus” According to those who object to the perpetual virginity of Mary, the use of the word ‘until’ in the text connotes the fact Mary may have had children after Jesus “However, in Greek and in the Semitic languages, such a negation often has no implication at all about what happened after the limit of the ‘until’ was reached. Here Matthew is concerned only with stressing Mary’s virginity before the child’s birth, so that the prophecy of Isaiah will be fulfilled: it is as a virgin that Mary will give birth to her son. These words reiterate the miracle of conception through the Holy Spirit, and do not lend support to the idea of the subsequent virginity of Mary, although they do not absolutely deny it.”
The second objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity is found in the phrase “first born son” as used in Luke 2:7 “ And she ( Mary) gave birth to her first born Son.” “The use of the “first- born” son might be taken to imply that there were other children born to Mary after Jesus. However, the Greek word translated here as “first born” does not necessarily mean “first- born of many. The term “first-born” was a legal term under Mosaic Law (Exodus 6: 14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of whether any other children followed or not. Hence when Jesus is called the” first- born” son of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third- born children. What it says is merely that no child of Mary preceded Jesus and that he was entitled to have all the privileges and status of the first – born in the Mosaic law (cf. Exod. 13:2; Num. 3:12-13;18:15-16, Deut. 21: 15-17. The word ‘first – born’ son is also mentioned in Colossians 1:15. “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation”
The third objection and the most serious of all the objections is based on the mention of the brothers and sisters of Jesus in Mark 3:31-35. “Prior to Mark’s Gospel, Paul made two references to ‘the brothers of the Lord’. ‘ Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the Apostles and the brothers of Lord and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5). ‘Three years after that, I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas with whom I stayed fifteen days. I did not meet any other apostles except James the brother of the Lord’. (Galatians 1:18ff).” “In Hebrew and Aramaic (language spoken by Jesus and his followers), there was no specific word for cousin. So the word for brother was sometimes used for brother, cousin or other relatives. But we know, for example, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6:3 as brothers of Jesus were, in fact, the sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas (Matthew 27:56). Since the Gospels also tell us that Mary of Clopas was the blessed Mother’s sister (John 19:25) that means she was Jesus’ aunt and her sons were Jesus’ cousins.” When one searches the scriptures, one will not find Mary identified as the mother of anyone but Jesus. Her perpetual virginity has been taught by the Church from the beginning and has been reaffirmed by the church since time immemorial. For instance, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 499-501, states that “The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’ birth did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it. And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the’ Ever- virgin’ ” “Our belief today is the same as it was in the fifth century when St. Augustine describe the blessed mother as a virgin who conceives, a virgin who gives birth, a virgin with child, a virgin delivered of child- a virgin ever virgin “ Therefore, it can be said that those mentioned as the brothers and sisters of Jesus or half brothers and sisters of Jesus are not his real brothers and sisters. “ …The Greek words that translated “ brothers and sisters” would normally refer to blood brothers and sisters, yet some scholars think that in the New Testament itself there is some evidence that the ‘ brothers’ were not blood brothers of Jesus. Attention is drawn to the crucifixion scene in Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:50 where there is a reference to one of the women looking on from afar as “Mary, the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome.” They point out further that the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children. While the Greek language had terms for cousins, step brothers, half brothers and so on, according to Bishop Osei- Bonsu, Hebrew and Aramaic did not have exact terminology for a wide range of family relationships. Rather, they reflected a tribal background, where members of the same tribe, clan or family were regarded as brothers and sisters, irrespective of their precise relationship. A case in point is the use of ‘brothers’ in Genesis 13:8 to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham, even though Lot was the nephew of Abraham. Therefore, against this background, it could be argued that those referred to as the ‘ brothers’ and ‘sisters’ of Jesus are being described according to a loose Semitic tribal terminology and were, actually, more distant relatives and therefore, not children of Mary.
CONCLUSION
Those who advocate that Mary have had children after the birth of Jesus simply are raising argument to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. At least I am consoled that they did not deny the virginity of Mary entirely. How can a woman remain a virgin after conception and delivery? She is indeed, a maiden yet a mother, daughter of her son. This is where faith defies logic. If this is possible why are they denying her perpetual virginity? There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word. Can logic accept this?

CELIBACY IS ABOUT RELATIONSHIP

Celibacy is not about the will; it is not about getting busy; it is not that you do not have the urge for sex that makes it possible for you to embrace celibacy. If we were animals the above may be true. Man is the combination of body and spirit. Man has the mind to speculate; a sense of conscience; a longing for something greater than that which exists in this world. Above all man has revelation. As human, our urge is not only to have sex but to have a relationship. This is made manifest in the fact that we have been created in the image and likeness of God and God is a relationship (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Celibacy is, therefore, a choice to be able to find relationship for your spirit with God. Thus, just as we will want to satisfy our body needs, celibacy invites us to satisfy the Spiritual needs. That is why even marriage couples can set aside sometime to avoid sex to satisfy their spiritual urge.
Having sex is not what fulfills but having a relationship. That is why even in marriage, a couple can commit adultery in their heart when one sees the other as a sex tool. Celibacy is a matter of the will in relation with God and not just a matter of the will alone. It is this relation with God that can keep you committed to celibacy and not your ‘busyness’. If you don’t have an urge how can you enter into a relationship?
There are three levels of relationships found in the context of the Priesthood and the Eucharist:
• Intimacy
• Appreciation
• Acceptance
The above are mutually exclusive. Christ maintains these three levels of relationship with us namely he is intimate with us; he appreciates us; he accepts us for who we are. In the Eucharist, when we eat God, we become like him and not he like us. For it said that we become what we eat. Indeed, the Eucharist is the only food that when we eat does not die but remains alive. There is only one person who calls us to a lasting relationship, even when we die his relationship with us is intact. God is that person. Therefore, sacrifice is the catchy word in any relationship. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can be chaste; that we can be celibate. It is our body that express this reality of the Spirit and that is why God chose to dwell in our bodies (the incarnation)
On the physical and emotional level, celibacy is the ability to know oneself as sexual and to experience some considerable comfort with that knowledge. It is the ability to regard oneself as sexual without experiencing neither the internal or external demand to do something about it- neither the need nor demand to act it out. It is the choice not to act out one’s sexuality in a genital or romantic way.
On the level of relationships, celibacy is the ability to cherish and nurture other people’s being and becoming without establishing bonds of mutual emotional dependence with them. It means not to be married, and not to be pursuing the path which naturally leads to marriage. It is the ability to establish warm and deep relationships with others by loving them and by being loved by them in a non-exclusive and non- possessive way. It is a way of loving which allows the celibate person to say. “They and I are better off for our having been together, but no worse off for our parting.”
On a practical level, celibacy is a way of remaining significantly more available to cherish and nurture others’ being and becoming because of the choice not to take on the responsibilities of establishing and maintaining family units.
On the level of social impact, the prophetic level, it is a way of living which seriously challenges the hedonistic tendencies in all of us. It says that an auto is not something to believe in, that you don’t necessarily deserve a break today, and that self- fulfillment is not the ultimate meaning of life.
On the personal level, spiritual level, celibacy is a commitment to stand ready to enter fully and vulnerably into life’s moments of loneliness because God can be found concrete in such moments. It is a commitment to face the reality in our separateness and incompleteness and to allow ourselves to experience, however momentarily, that our own being and becoming is blessed by God and to discover the radical all- sufficiency of God.
But dissected, into its various levels and parts, celibacy cannot be understood, because religious celibacy is a lifestyle which integrates all of these parts and levels in such a way that speaking only of one or the other aspect of this whole will severely distort the meaning of the experience. And yet each level and aspect of it needs to be verified if an individual is truly to live celibacy.
And finally, on the level of Christian faith, celibacy is this lifestyle taken up and lived in response to a call or invitation one has received from God to live as Jesus did. The call to be celibate is a gift from God. Celibacy as a lifestyle has never been upheld as a value by the Church. It is celibacy “For the sake of the kingdom of God” which has always been promoted. It has always presumed that the individual who takes up the celibate life has had an overwhelming experience of God.
In sum, our ministry is a collaborative one. The celibate life is no exception; it must be lived collaboratively otherwise we will cause scandal to our generation; a scandal which will come from the popular notion that “Everybody for himself God for us all”. We must necessarily provide support for one another; a support which is borne out of

Friday, November 20, 2009

Thursday, November 12, 2009

SOME QUOTES

1. One does not speak of God to people who have entered life’s moments of intimacy fully and vulnerably any more than one speaks of God to those who have entered fully and vulnerably into life’s moments of loneliness. Words intended to inform about who God is or how he is present in our lives are useless and unnecessary when people have found God concrete.
2. Nothing is totally incompatible with Christianity as doing something selfish.
3. True human intimacy is the fusion of personalities that still leaves all personalities intact
4. Mysteries don’t develop but the words used to express those mysteries in doctrinal or dogmatic statements do.
5. If we will look at our lives and recognize that the limitations resulting from our choices and commitments have also opened the possibility of greater depth and if we will pursue that possibility instead of lamenting the limitations, resentment can turn to gratitude.
6. None of us could do what we do for others without being committed to the life we have chosen. Marriage has never worked; the priesthood has never worked. It has only worked for those who have been committed to making it work.
7. Making sense out of our life is something we do with our intellectual powers; committing ourselves to a way of life is something we do with our will.

IS LAW DIVORCED FROM RELIGION IN THE PROMOTION OF RECONCILIATION, JUSTICE AND PEACE

To say that law and religion are divorced from each other in the life of any society is an understatement. “When prevailing concepts of law and religion become too narrow and hence the links between the two are broken, a society becomes demoralized.”[i] The concept of law and religion is broad. This essay will thus relate it as much as possible to the Ghanaian society especially in our fifty years of independence. How has the interaction of law and religion benefit Ghana as a nation? What values have religion imparted to the Ghanaian as regards respect for the law. Let us define terms and advance reasons to support the view that law and religion are distinctly inseparable; they are a necessary condition for the progress of every nation and that taken individually, they do not stand a fair chance of imparting moral values to the citizens of any nation. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Theory of Law is going to be my point of reference.
To begin with, the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles defined law “As a rule of conduct imposed by a secular authority. The body of rules whether formally enacted or customary, which a particular state or community recognizes as governing the actions of its subjects or members and which it may enforce by imposing penalties.[ii] “The definition of law is based on the notion of the common good, promulgated by one who has the care of the community”[iii] Religion on the other hand comes from the Latin ‘Religare’ meaning ‘ bind fast’. “It is belief in or sensing superhuman controlling powers entitled to obedience, reverence and worship or a system defining a code of living especially as a means to achieve a spiritual or material improvement.”
For St. Thomas Aquinas, there are four kinds of law: the Eternal Law, the Natural Law, Divine Law and Positive Human Law. “The Divine law is the law God has revealed imperfectly to the Jews and perfectly through Christ”[iv] while the law of the state is called positive human law. Therefore, it is the duty of the legislator to apply natural law and support the laws by sanctions. For instance, murder is forbidden by natural law but there are no sanctions attached to it and so the positive human laws are enacted to apply sanctions and make it effective. It follows that positive human law is derived from the natural law and every human law is a true law only as far as it is derived from natural law. It is clear from the above that the foundation of any human law is God himself and so where law and religion appear to contradict in principle, then, it has no chance of imparting values to any citizen.
Ghana seems to be enjoying a meaningful interaction of law and religion in the past fifty years. But one cannot deny the fact that “Our whole culture seems to be experiencing a nervous breakdown.” One major symptom of this threatening breakdown is the massive loss of confidence in law not only on the part of law consumers (citizens) but also on the part of the legislature and the judiciary. A second major challenge is a massive loss of confidence in religion again, not only on the part of those who sit in the pews but also on the part of those who occupy the pulpits. A case in point is the recent call by some Ghanaians for the legalization of prostitution as a means to raising tax for the development of the nation, controlling HIV/ AIDS and people’s behavior. All these are laced in the context of human rights. “It is their right” some say but the advocates of this stand forget that when it is passed, it can lead to the disintegration of the moral fibre of society. This is where law and religion must work concurrently. Religion is fundamental to every human being. Karl Marx says, “it is the opium of the Masses” while J. S. Mbiti says Africans and for that matter Ghanaians are notoriously religious. Today, in Ghana, criminals are walking on the streets freely while innocent people are languishing in prison because religious lawyers and judges have developed blind spots to the sufferings of innocent people. The law which is meant for the common Good has become the preserve of a few. Thus law and religion seem to be divorced from each other. The blame may partly go to both the law schools and the schools of theology, which share a responsibility for the narrowness, and rigidity of our thought on this matter.
If we see law in dictionary terms as a structure or body of rules laid down by political authority and similarly we see religion as a system of beliefs and practices relating to the supernatural, the two seem connected with each other only very distantly or in only a few rather narrow and specific respects. Nevertheless, in reality, both law and religion are interconnected, interdependent and indivisible. “Law is not only a body of rules, it is people legislating, adjudicating, administering, negotiating – it is a living process of allocating rights and responsibilities and thereby resolving conflicts and creating channels of cooperation. Religion is not only a set of doctrines and exercises; it is people manifesting a collective concern for the ultimate and purpose of life. It is a shared intuition of a commitment to transcendent values.”[v]
Law is to give religion its social dimension and religion is to give the law its spirit and direction as well as the sanctity it needs to command respect. Where they are divorced from each other, law tends to degenerate into mere rules to be followed and religion into mere observance of religious rules. “LAW helps to give society the structure it needs to maintain inner cohesion; law fights anarchy. Religion helps to give society the faith it needs to face the future; religion fights against decadence”[vi] The 1992 constitution of Ghana amply demonstrates that law and religion cannot and must not be separated from each other. In the introductory paragraph, there is a portion which reads “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA IN THE NAME OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD…”[vii] I believe that this goes to confirm the fact that law and religion are intrinsically linked.
Indeed, the peace Ghana is enjoying today is partly due to interaction of law and religion. The interaction of law and religion has brought about group solidarity. Ghanaians have come together in recent times to condemn some social evils like rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, occultism, armed robbery, among others. A recent case in point is the passage of the Domestic Violence Bill to protect the dignity of her citizens.
That notwithstanding, it cannot be said that the interaction of law and religion is devoid of problems. Evil continues to show its ugly head in our society. People still commit murder; armed robbery is on the ascendancy, rape and immorality are no exceptions.
The interaction between law and religion, which stresses the common good of the nation, has awakened Ghanaians to condemn anything that breeds inter ethnic conflict. “We cannot sit down and allow a few unscrupulous people to destabilize the peace we are enjoying in this nation.” The interaction of law and religion calls on us to preserve human dignity and to openly condemn all that threatens the sanctity and value of human life.
In sum, “as law without religion loses its sanctity and its inspiration, so religion without law loses its social and historical character and becomes a purely personal mystique.” Indeed, Ghanaians should be lauded for interpreting the law in the spirit of religion. I believe strongly that the teaching of religious and moral education and the essence of the law should be incorporated fully in our curriculum especially at the lower levels of education. In my ardent opinion, when children are brought to accept the role that law and religion play in the life of any nation in their formative years, then, there will be hope for Ghana.
[i] Berman Harold J., The interaction of Law and Religion, Abingdon Press, Nashville New York, 1974, page 12.
[ii] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (V.1), edited by Lesley Brown, Clarendon Press, 1973, P. 1544.
[iii] Izu Marcel Onyeocha, Introfil – A First Encounter with Philosophy, the Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, Washington D.C., 1996, p. 189.
[iv] Copleston, Frederick, Sj, A history of philosophy (v.2), Image books, New York, 1962, Page 138
[v]Berman Harold J., The interaction of Law and Religion, Abingdon Press, Nashville New York, 1974, page 24.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana, Assembly Press, Accra.



BIBLIOGRAP