Catholic | Blogger Priest

Limbo in Limbo, or Suburb of Hell?

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Father Joe

Can children, and notably infants, go to hell?

It seems that St. Augustine (354-430 AD) and some of the early fathers of the Church thought so and for this reason they mandated infant baptism. While they were not guilty of personal sin, they still suffered from the effects of unremitted original sin. St. Augustine’s opinions held sway at the Council of Carthage (418 AD) which rejected even a limbo existence or place of happiness for unbaptized children. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “St. Augustine thought that unbaptized infants went to hell, although he conceded that, due to their lack of personal responsibility and guilt for original sin, the pains of hell were in some way diminished for them” (vol. 8, p. 590). St. Anselm (1033-1109) sided with St. Augustine on the matter of “positive suffering” in hell for unbaptized children. Origin challenged the notion. But the problem was Jesus commanded that unless we were born again of water and the Spirit we could have no part of him.

A sentiment for infant damnation has been revisited in some of the Protestant churches, especially those with a Calvinistic flavor. We recall that Thomas Hardy’s TESS in literature was turned down by an Anglican clergyman when she begged for her child to have a Christian burial. Similarly, the Puritan Johnathan Edwards in his fiery sermons and Sir Isaac Wattes’ in song declared that “the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized children.”

After the fathers, as the Church continued her reflection on this matter, the scholastics detailed their own theory of a LIMBO PUERORUM. St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) conjectured that this limbo was a middle state of perfect natural happiness; however, they would be deprived of the Beatific Vision. Italian Jansenists would return to St. Augustine’s view at the Synod of Pistola (1786) and argue as revealed doctrine that unbaptized children are damned to the eternal fires of hell. Pope Pius VI came out with Auctorem Fidei (1794) siding with the more moderate scholastics and condemned the view that unbaptized infants suffer hell fire.

Those of us who cherished and memorized our Baltimore Catechism, remember limbo, from the Latin “limbus” meaning hem or border, as a teaching that preserved the necessity of baptism while excluding unbaptized babies from the full severity of God’s justice, since they had committed no personal sin. The universal catechism today says nothing about limbo. Rather, it states: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mark 10:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who haved died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” [CCC 1261].

The subject of LIMBO was in the news about six years ago with a report from the Vatican’s International Theological Commission. Like so much else, it was being misreported. Various news organizations wrongly said that the Pope and the Vatican were officially nixing Limbo and yet the Holy Father was simply signing off with allowing the commission to publish its findings after years of investigation. Further, the commission did not totally close the door to the long-held theory, only that it was unlikely and seemed an overly “restrictive view of salvation”. The commission contended that there were good reasons to hope that babies who die without the benefit of baptism (might) go to heaven.

John Thavis of the CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE reports:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo — as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God — seemed to reflect an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.

But there is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and “wants all human beings to be saved,” it said. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ’s special love for “the little ones,” it said.

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered … give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision,” the document said.

“We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge,” it added.

The document is not very large, only 41 pages and is entitled, THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED. Thirty experts from around the world sit on the international commission. It only has an advisory role and such documents do not represent “authoritative” teaching that mandates assent.

The question is increasingly important given that more and more couples are laxed or dismissive of baptism and because of the holocaust of abortion. Limbo was never defined Church teaching but was a highly regarded theory taught in old catechisms. It is not in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The CNS article states:

The Church’s hope for these infants’ salvation reflects a growing awareness of God’s mercy, the commission said. But the issue is not simple, because appreciation for divine mercy must be reconciled with fundamental Church teachings about original sin and about the necessity of baptism for salvation, it said.

The document traced the development of church thinking about the fate of unbaptized children, noting that there is “no explicit answer” from Scripture or tradition.

“God can…give the grace of baptism without the sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when the conferring of baptism would be impossible,” it said.

In this and other situations, the need for the sacrament of baptism is not absolute and is secondary to God’s desire for the salvation of every person, it said.

This does not deny that all salvation comes through Christ and in some way through the Church, it said, but it requires a more careful understanding of how this may work.

How might unbaptized babies be united to Christ?

A “saving conformity to Christ in his own death” by infants who themselves suffer and die.
A solidarity with Christ among infant victims of violence, born and unborn, who like the holy innocents killed by King Herod are endangered by the “fear or selfishness of others.”
God may simply give the gift of salvation to unbaptized infants, corresponding to his sacramental gift of salvation to the baptized.

Later we read:

The findings of this report should not be used to “negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament.”

“Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable — to baptize them in the faith of the church and incorporate them visibly into the body of Christ.”

“It must be clearly acknowledged that the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die,” it said.

*************************

ORIGINAL SIN
Catholic Belief by J. Faa Di Bruno, D.D.

ORIGINAL sin is distinguished from actual, or personal, sin in this — that actual or personal sin is the sin which we personally with our own free will commit whilst original sin is that which our human nature committed with the will of Adam, in whom all our human nature was included, and with whom our human nature is united as a branch to a root, as a child to a parent, as men who partake with Adam the same nature which we have derived from him, and as members of the same human family of which Adam was the head. The difference between original and personal sin is that the latter is committed with our own personal will, whilst original sin was committed with the will of another, and only morally our own, because it forms with that other (Adam, who is our head) one moral body — humanity.

If our hand strike a fellow-creature unjustly, though the hand have no will of its own, yet it is considered guilty, not indeed as viewed in itself, but inasmuch as it is united to the rest of the body, and to the soul, forming one human being; and thus sharing in the will of the soul with which it is connected.

In the same manner the sin committed inwardly by the human will, by a bad desire, belongs to the whole human being.

Of original sin, in which we are born, we are not personally guilty with our own personal will, but our nature is guilty by the will of Adam our head, with whom we form one moral body through the human nature which we derive from him.

It is a point of Catholic faith that original sin does not consist in what is called concupiscence, which is a propensity to evil of the inferior part of the human soul.

Sin, to be a sin in the strict sense of the word, must be within the sphere of morality, that is, must depend upon free will; and hence the noted principle in moral philosophy and theology, that there is no sin where there is no will.

Concupiscence, therefore, which is not will, but a blind, involuntary inclination of our lower nature (and therefore an irresponsible tendency to evil), is not of itself sinful unless it be consented to by the will, or rendered strong by bad and unrestricted habit.

Concupiscence is indeed sometimes called sin in Holy Scripture (Romans 7:7; Galatians 5:24), but it is called so as the holy Council of Trent explains, not in a strict, but in a wide sense, that is, inasmuch as it is a consequence of original sin, and an incentive to actual sin.

This concupiscence, or inclination to evil, still remains in those from whom the guilt and stain of original sin has been entirely washed away by the Sacrament of Baptism. Moreover, strictly speaking, no one is regarded as a sinner merely because he feels tempted to sin. This miserable propensity to evil excites the compassion rather than the anger of God; who said to Noah: “I will no more curse the earth for the sake of man; for the imagination and thought of man’s heart are prone to evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam by his sin not only caused harm to himself, but to the whole human race; that by it he lost, the supernatural justice and holiness which he received gratuitously from God, and lost it, not only for himself, but also for all of us; and that he, having stained himself with the sin of disobedience, has transmitted not only death and other bodily pains and infirmities to the whole human race, but also sin, which is the death of the soul.
The teaching of the Council of Trent (Session 5) is confirmed by these words of St. Paul: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

The Royal Psalmist (Psalm 1:7) says: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities and in sins did my mother conceive me.” (In the Hebrew text it ia in the singular, i.e., conceived me in sin.)

Upon this text St. Augustine says: “David was not born in adultery, for he was born from Jesse, a just man, and his wife. Why does he say that he was conceived in iniquity, unless because iniquity is derived from Adam?”

That the early Christians believed in original sin, can be gathered from what St. Augustine said to Pelagius: “I did not invent original sin, which Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but thou, who deniest it, thou without doubt, art a new heretic” (De Nuptiis, Book 11, Chapter 12).

It may be said that this belief is as old as the human race, for traces of this ancient tradition are spread among all nations, insomuch that Voltaire had to confess that “The fall of man is the base of the theology of nearly all ancient people” (Philosophie de l’Histoire, chapitre 17).

Besides the guilt of original sin, which is the habitual state of sinfulness in which we are born (because our human nature is justly considered to have consented in Adam to the rejection of original justice), there is also in man the stain of original sin, entailing in the human soul the privation of that supernatural luster which, had we been born in the state of original justice, we all should have had.

As neither Adam nor any of his offspring could repair the evil done by his sin, we should have always remained in the state of original sin and degradation in which we were born, and have been forever shut out from the beatific vision of God in heaven, had not God, in His infinite mercy, provided for us a Redeemer.

COMMENTS

Anita Moore OPL

Here, for what they are worth, are my own speculations on the fate of infants who die without the Sacrament of Baptism.

As for whether children can go to Hell, with or without Baptism, St. Faustina recounts in her Diary a vision in which Jesus asks her to intercede on behalf of children, because children were offending Him very much. (I wish I could cite to the exact section, but the index to the Diary is far from exhaustive.)

In an age when we assume children go to Heaven, despite the greater and greater evils perpetrated by them, should this not give us pause?

Susan

I do not believe infants cause evil. A two week old cannot commit an evil, but alas a 5 year old may be able to. It has to do with reason. A newborn infant does not have that ability. Faustina may have had to intercede on behalf of children, not infants. There is a difference.

Father Joe

Children make first penance and communion in second grade, with the Church judging that by seven to eight years old they have reached the age of reason. No one ever suggested in the debate that infants had committed personal sin. The problem was original sin (passed on from Adam and Eve) and the necessity for faith (even if from parents and godparents) and baptism. Remember, salvation is purely a gift that left to our own devices we cannot deserve or merit apart from Christ.

Susan

In my previous response I was responding to what Anita said, just clarifying that infants do not commit personal sin.

The report said, ““God can…give the grace of baptism without the sacrament being conferred, and this fact should particularly be recalled when the conferring of baptism would be impossible,” I particularly believe this to be true with the unborn that die before they even take their first breath. God is merciful and loving and as our Father I believe he welcomes these little ones who never got the chance.

Anita Moore OPL

I never said infants are guilty of personal sin. I was referring to children who have reached the age of reason.

The reality is that we do not know for certain what happens to infants who die without baptism. Maybe the reason God has kept this knowledge from us is because if we knew for certain that all who die in infancy go to heaven, we might not bother to have infants baptized.

Father Joe

Did not mean to imply you did. I was just trying to be comprehensive.

Donald E. Flood

Father Joe, the ITC report never cited, even as a reference, the Papal Bull “Effraenatam” from Pope Sixtus V, which stated the following:
“Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment ‘do not kill’ was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions, and has taken away the service to God by His creature?”

http://iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

Clearly, Pope Sixtus V, taught, from the Chair of Peter, that abortion excludes an infant’s soul from Heaven, the Beatific Vision.

Father Joe

The document was a condemnation and censure against abortion. Peripheral issues are connected but the issue for the Vatican is what the Pope intended to say and to define. Not everything that Popes include in such documents have the same weight. It is an exercise of the ordinary authority of the Holy See. Certain juridical elements would be altered by a later pontificate.

Filed under: Baptism, Catholic, Eschatology, Justification, Resurrection, Salvation, Sin | 1 Comment »

Another Upset Woman About Married Priests, WHY?

Posted on March 24, 2013 by Father Joe

CATHY: It is impossible to make such assumption that having a wife and children would be distraction to priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope when they were never allowed to have a family in the first place and many have fooled around anyway. To make people choose against a holy sacrament of marriage is to break the first commandment in the bible which is to be fruitful and multiply. You would take away some of the supposed scandal from the church if you would allow for men and women (nuns) to serve and be married. How can ministers of the word even begin to identify with parishoners if they have not lived through some of their circumstances especially since ministry begins in the home. Sex is not vile if done within marriage. It is a God sanctioned act. This not being married is a man sanctioned decree. Every prophet and most of the apostles including St. Peter were married. Their trials were due to the times they were living in. Now, unless you are living in pagan or atheist parts of the world, no one is trying to burn or stone you for being Catholic.

FATHER JOE:

You assert several serious falsehoods:

First, the Church in the West once had a married clergy and determined that celibate clergy best served the Lord and the Church. In other words, we have “been there and done that.”

Second, most Catholic ministers are faithful to their promises and do not “fool around” as you put it. You malign me and many good priests. How dare you do this?

Third, the command in Genesis is given to the species, not to every individual. Otherwise, you would have to force people to get married and mandate that all fertile females get pregnant. Such would be absolutely silly. Our Lord did not get married and neither did St. Paul. Deacons represent both married and unmarried clergy in the Catholic Church. Most priests and all bishops are celibate. We did not “choose against marriage” but rather “chose a spiritual marriage to Christ’s Church.” You minimize the sacrifice and the value of such single-hearted love. You should be ashamed of yourself for that.

Fourth, please, do not be silly; sick and unfaithful people are still sick and unfaithful if they are married. A majority of men who left priesthood for marriage subsequently divorced. Protestant churches may not have their dirty laundry paraded on the news, but they have their own scandals with married clergy. A Methodist minister and friend of mine had a large and vibrant church in Washington, DC. He had an affair with a lady in the choir and got himself fired and defrocked. A married clergy would only amplify the possibility of scandal, albeit with divorce, abuse, incest, etc. There is nothing unnatural or wrong with celibacy. The answer to our problems is not a married priesthood. Allowing nuns to marry violates the very nature of their calling.

Fifth, the family may be the little Church but there is no requirement that every man be an ordained priest. Priests deal with many families. There is marriage preparation, counseling, and confession. We see and hear it all. We know the plight of our people. Our celibacy makes us available to them. We might not have our own wives and families, but we belong to our many parish families. Priests are not fools.

Sixth, a celibate priesthood is no condemnation of human sexuality and marriage. Do you know nothing about Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body? The marital act must remain within marriage as the consummation and renewal of the marital covenant. But there is no requirement that we collect as many sacraments as possible. Most men will never be priests. Most Western priests will never be married. I will never have a child. But few men can stand at the altar and make Christ present with the words of consecration. The Priesthood with Mass and Confession are enough for me.

Seventh, celibacy is a discipline of the Church. But our Lord gave such authority to his Church and it is not for you or me to impugn or spurn it. The Church has the mind of Christ in this matter.

Eighth, the Jewish and Christian view of marriage was not the same. Jews tended to see God’s blessings in progeny, wealth and land. Christians are urged to embrace a poverty of spirit. It is in this light that St. Paul recommends celibacy as the better way. You would be hard-pressed to show a married background for all the prophets. St. Paul and certain others were not married. There is evidence that the early Church had a preference for perfect continence on the part of married men who became priests. Strict celibacy would relieve the tension caused by such a situation.

Nine, while I not entirely sure how this fits into the debate about priesthood and marriage, we are facing terrible trials today, too. I have parishioners with family members suffering violence and death in Asia and Africa. Churches are being bombed and Christians are being martyred. The news here at home is filled with daily assaults upon the Church and our religious liberty. Indeed, the government is seeking to shut us down or compromise our moral message. Sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about. Not having a wife and family might free a priest from fears of retaliation against them or intimidation through them. Men often feel that they must make compromises to secure their families. Are you married Cathy? Does your husband agree with you about mandating married priests?

Cathy, you really know very little about men as priests or what matters to us. We have men and women friends but we save our intimacy for God. Marriage is a wonderful thing, but so is celibate love. Do you find that hard to believe? We do not need to be married. We do not want to be married. We are happy. Why is it that people like yourself want to mess with our lives? If a man is called to holy orders then God will give him the graces for this state of life.

Peace!

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Marriage, Priests | 6 Comments »

Would a Good God Command the Murder of Children?

Posted on March 5, 2013 by Father Joe

BOYCE: How can God command his followers to kill children (1 Samuel) and still be the moral authority?

FATHER JOE:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will punish what Amalek did to the Israelites when he barred their way as they came up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

The Amalekites (descendants of Esau) had long been a dreaded enemy of God’s people. The curse of God against them in Exodus 17:14 was not unlike other biblical condemnations; i.e., the primordial Flood or the curse against the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The judgment of God targets not merely individuals, but as with divine favor, the larger community. Catholicism has retained this appreciation in regard to faith; it is both personal and corporate. We are all connected. The Amalekites resented the favor that God had shown Israel.

Some critics make a modified utilitarian argument, arguing that God orders or permits such taking of human life for a greater good. In this case, it would be the survival of his Chosen People. Less convincing but not discounted is the argument that the destruction of a people is for their own good, saving the souls of children by having them die before being corrupted by sin.

What are my thoughts about this? First, all life belongs to God since he is its author. This is the pervading truth that we must understand. It is on this account that God’s taking of our life is not reckoned as evil. Second, God meets us where we are. In other words, God does not reveal himself to us all at once but in a progressive fashion, over time, and culminating in Jesus Christ. The early Jews were little different from their blood-thirsty neighbors, and yet they were the people that God had chosen for himself and from which the Messiah or Christ would emerge.

The Egyptians had employed infanticide against the Jews and Moses was spared. Herod ordered the execution of the first born of Israel, and both Jesus and John the Baptist were spared. Just as in the argument about divorce and remarriage, our Lord tries to correct that which in their “hardness of hearts” they failed to understand. When God intervenes, he does so upon the side of life and justice.

The genuine Christian sensibility, and that of most post-Holocaust Jews, will never be comfortable with certain Old Testament scenes where the Chosen People interpret their own bloodlust as part of the divine will. The psalms used in the breviary and liturgy are edited so that we might not have to bless the one who bashes children to death against the rock (Psalm 137:9). We find this attitude abhorrent, and yet, rationalizations and modern deceits based upon human selfishness and not fidelity to God would tolerate and promote the murder of millions of children annually through abortion. Here is where many of the atheistic critics of religion on this point show their hypocrisy. Catholic teaching has developed over the centuries so as to emphasize that all human life is incommensurate and that innocent life must be protected.

Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Catholic, Commandments, Discipleship, Jesus, Morality, Pro-Life, Religion | 1 Comment »

More Arguments with Anti-Catholic Bigots

Posted on February 15, 2013 by Father Joe

I respond to negative comments from Jorge Ulate and Darren J. Cowley.

JORGE: Where in the Bible does it say that the Catholic Church is the “church” established by Jesus? If I recall correctly Jesus established Jews to run his ministry. All the apostles, excluding one was not a Jew. So, how can this be? I am a Christian, now with all due respect. Can you answer me? So I would not be so confused. Or maybe I should convert to the right path— the Jesus way, not the Catholic.

FATHER JOE: The Catholic Church has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to the first apostles. If you read Acts and the epistles of Paul it is obvious that the Church was expanding beyond members of the Jewish nation to include the Gentiles. When the Jerusalem faith community was largely destroyed, the gravity would move to the large numbers of Greeks and Romans. Peter and Paul had already gone to Rome and had become martyrs of the true faith. The historical continuity connects the Catholic Church to the Church directly established by Jesus Christ. Simon is renamed Peter or Rock and Christ promises to give him the keys to the kingdom, warning that the gates of hell would never overcome the Church. Only the Catholic Church still claims a leader who is a successor of Peter, the one we call the Pope. The Eastern churches are also connected to us and have all seven sacraments. The juridical break is over the Petrine See, notably the extent of the Pope’s authority. However, they too see their bishops as successors of the apostles. Christ is called the Way and the early Church also termed the Church as such. This makes sense since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The word “catholic” means universal or worldwide. There is one Church instituted by Christ to perpetuate his ministry and to preach his truths.

HONEST DARREN OF AUSTRALIA: The Catholic Church is well documented by secular authors as having killed 100 million people during the inquisition and dark ages.

FATHER JOE: Not true, and what are these secular authorities? Anti-Catholic apologists and certain fundamentalists make such bloated claims, but they are hardly secular or unbiased. The inquisitions were largely civil affairs over which the Church had minimal control. Spain was the harshest and there were probably only seven million people in the whole country at the time. Rome censured them for their severity. The entire population of all of Europe might not have been 100 million. Stop telling lies or do some credible research and put an end to your libelous ignorance. A few thousand people may have suffered capital punishment. By comparison, since 1976, the United States has executed 1,321 people. The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops opposes the use of the death penalty.

HONEST DARREN OF AUSTRALIA: These people are anyone who did not accept their spiritual authority on earth.

FATHER JOE: No, these were people who were judged dangerous to civil harmony. The secular leaders viewed religion as a glue to hold their societies together. Spain fought hard to remove the Moslems from their nation and their inquisition sometimes targeted Jews. Freemasons were also regarded as a threat since they conspired against both the state and the Church. Eventually Protestant monarchs would repress the freedoms of Catholics just as Catholic leaders had sought to minimize the damage of non-Catholic factions in their nations. The Inquisition in Italy is regarded by all authorities as the most mild. Crimes were not just heresy but infractions for which today’s civil courts would also render punishment. Of 75,000 cases judged, some 1,250 may have received the death sentence.

HONEST DARREN OF AUSTRALIA: They have never acknowledged this or apologized.

FATHER JOE: It makes no sense for the Church to acknowledge your deceit. Having said this, the late Pope John Paul II regarded even one life as sacred and having incommensurate value, took the high ground and offered a series of “mea culpas” or apologies in the hope that others would respond in kind. Read his apostolic letter, TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE. He writes: “Another painful chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.” It was his hope that this new millennium might be less bloody than the last.

HONEST DARREN OF AUSTRALIA: They are an abomination God. The pope is a sinful and corrupt man, he is not God and does not have any authority.

FATHER JOE: Actually, your bigotry is the abomination. Your hypocrisy damages the Christian witness we are to offer the world. Calumny is a sin and yours is paraded for all to see. The Pope like all good men recognizes that he is a sinner and he has a Confessor. Like Peter, he is a weak man; but also like Peter, the sacred charge is given to him by Christ, all the same. The Pope does not claim to be God. He is the Vicar of Christ, the Servant of the Servants of God. You are probably the unwitting servant of the father of lies.

HONEST DARREN OF AUSTRALIA: Spend time on your knees in prayer and read the Bible, and you will be led to the truth and a close relationship to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

FATHER JOE: I read the Scriptures every day and pray throughout the day. As a Catholic, I have both a personal and a corporate faith in Jesus Christ. As a priest, I am God’s instrument in extending the saving works or ministry among men. Christ feeds his people. Christ forgives his people. Christ heals his people. Christ teaches his people. The Catholic Church is the New People of God!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Evangelization, Religion | 9 Comments »

Comments About Demons & Exorcisms

Posted on February 12, 2013 by Father Joe

Msgr. Charles Pope recently blogged about pastoral considerations for people who might be battling demons. Some time back I wrote a post detailing an exorcism that was started here in Washington and concluded in St. Louis back in the 1940′s. Here are some recent comments sent to me about the issue of Exorcism, along with my responses:

Kylie – Father Joe, are there really people now-a-days that come in contact with the devil? Do people still have exorcisms preformed upon them? I am very interested in this kind of stuff and would really like to learn more information about it. Nowhere online does it really help me with my research on this. Is it only in the movies? Please contact me.

FATHER JOE: Kylie, I would suggest that before studying evil, we should be well-versed in goodness. It is only in first knowing God and having a saving relationship with our Lord that one might research such matters with a degree of safety. It is not a subject for casual interest. Movies are often inaccurate and are geared to exaggerate so as to arouse fear. I would start with the Gospels. There you will find the full gamut of Christ’s ministry: teaching, healing, forgiving, exorcizing the demonic and raising the dead. Pick up the Bible.

Martin – I am 15 and want to be an exorcist because it interests me. I hope you reply. I could use the advice of someone with experience. I am lost in this world. I feel like this can help me find my reason to still live in this world.

FATHER JOE: Martin, You cannot begin to help others when you cannot help yourself. A person who is lost cannot help a person find his or her way out from the grasp of the demonic. Every exorcist in the Catholic Church is a priest. Priests have the power to forgive sins. Never in the history of the world had God given such power to men. However, you must love God and feel that he has called you to a single-hearted love for him and his people. Our purpose in this world is to know God, to love God and to serve God. We will continue to give glory to God in the world to come. Can you give your life to Christ? Say your prayers, go to Mass and study the faith. If you feel at some point that God has given you a calling, see your local Catholic priest.

Edward – To read of the actual experience brings the educational level of one who watches the movie to a height that far dwarfs the power of fear that would otherwise take one further away from faith in God.

FATHER JOE: Yes, the power of Christ is truly awesome!

Josh – Hi Father Joe, I would just like to ask what role guardian angels play in assisting the exorcism of the person they are charged with, or the protection of the exorcist to whom they are charged?

FATHER JOE: Joshua, the guardian angels are always about praying for their charges. Of course, the good angels, like their counterparts the demons, are still only spiritual creatures. Their actions are limited by human freedom and the mysterious providence of God. The good angels are messengers of God’s grace, strength and will. Demons still have certain angelic powers but nothing of supernatural grace. That means that any confrontation is spiritually stacked against them. Not all angels or demons are the same, but the real power is always on the side of Christ.

Christian – Hi Father Joe, I believe that exorcisms should be allowed. What other way can they get help? I have never really seen one but I want to experience it. I want to be a help to these people God. Bless Father.

FATHER JOE: Christian, while there is a need for exorcism to be practiced, you do NOT want to experience it. Such a desire, in itself, would invalidate you. We want to help people. But, in no way is an exorcism a worthwhile experience. Would you like to change the bedpans of patients in a hospital? Could you, hour upon hour, spend your day exclusively changing diapers for the elderly in a nursing home? Is that an experience you want? Exorcisms are far worse. The demons are spiritual excrement. They are vile and they will seek to contaminate you. You mean well but you really do not know what you are saying.

Colleen – Father, my daughter has been suffering from illusions such as people trying to kill her, etc. I have taken her back and forth to hospitals. She has been taken also to prayer warriors. Last night she argued with her boyfriend. Every time she argues, she gets these attacks. Last night was worse as it was dark and raining. She held a knife and wanted to stab anyone who came near her. She was speaking with sounds that I could not understand. The knife she was holding was shaking and her eyes were so red. I have never seen such during her attacks. Please help.

FATHER JOE: What was the diagnosis given by the doctors? I am no expert on these matters and there is much in particular about this case I do not know. Has medicine been prescribed? If you feel the problem is a spiritual one then I would suggest going to see your local priest. He can pray over her for healing and spiritual deliverance. If this matter is more serious then he can take it to the appropriate diocesan authorities. I am not sure what you mean by “prayer warriors,” as we are all called to be such intercessors for one another. I would avoid anything that smacks of witchcraft or superstition. Such might seem to bring momentary relief but ultimately makes matters far worse. If she is a danger to herself and others then you must take serious steps and notify the authorities. I will keep you all in my prayers.

Charles – Several posters refer to The Rite and Fr. Gary Thomas. Father Gary is in a nearby parish. I attended a prayer breakfast with him and a Catholic group just after The Rite came out. The book ends with two exorcisms, one recurring and routine of an obsessed software engineer, the other of a Venezuelan girl who lived in the (adjacent) Diocese of Oakland (Alameda). The Bishop of Oakland asked for Fr. Gary’s intervention. The Venezuelan girl was totally possessed, he said. She’d been involved in jungle magic in Venezuela, and continued in black magic in the SF Bay area. When he sprinkled holy water on her in the rectory and began to pray, she “manifested.” Her face immediately changed to that of a monkey, she lunged for his collar, was held down on the carpet by her parents, where she writhed like a snake and screamed. Then she passed out. A few minutes later she woke up and had no memory of it. He called her in the following weeks for a full exorcism and she denied anything was wrong with her. He did not hear from her again.

FATHER JOE: I have neither read the book nor seen the movie.

Edward M – You’re all a bunch a fakes! / You have no files of documentation! / You have no reports or films on camera! / You have no proof whatsoever! / What a bunch of fakers! / God rocks E.

FATHER JOE: Some authorities do have documentation. I have shared parts of a journal here. But you are entitled to your opinion, even if it includes rudeness.

Filed under: Catholic, Exorcism, Sin | 10 Comments »

Responding to a Catholic Hater #3

Posted on February 11, 2013 by Father Joe

EVETTE: The ones who are supposed to be so called mediators or intercessors for the people are child molesters. I thank God for the Church of God! I thank God that I can live a life free from sin at 30 years old. Since repenting of my sins 4 years ago, God has given me the grace each day to live sin free in a sin filled world. That’s the God I serve!

FATHER JOE: Hum, well this discussion is going quickly to mud-slinging. Most priests are good and holy men. You do them and the priesthood a great disservice with your slur. It is hardly a Christian attitude, dare I say even sinful? And yet, you still insist upon your own righteousness, despite such an unchristian manner. Christ is the Mediator and men ordained to his ministries participate in his one priesthood. As for intercession, it is true that priests pray for their people, indeed, all Catholics are expected to pray for the welfare and good of others, living and dead. I guess you pray for no one except yourself. The parameters for your private faith allow no room for anyone else to get in. Beware; it may even shut out Jesus. You say thank God for his Church and yet you attack his Church, the Catholic community of faith, the Mystical Body of Christ. You might not believe this, but instead of claiming a share in his “church” by faith and baptism, you want it all for yourself. The Catholic faith would pray for you, even forgive you. Your response to the Catholic Church is condemnation and hatred. That is not from God. I am not sure how you define sin, but despite your protestations to the contrary, I just do not believe you. You might avoid many of the more visible and egregious sins, but you can also commit transgressions in your thoughts and in your heart.

EVETTE: I don’t have to lie anymore, fornicate anymore, cheat and deceive anymore.

FATHER JOE: Are you sure you do not lie “anymore”? If so, then what we are dealing with here is either ignorance or self-deception. You say you do not “fornicate” anymore and that is well and good; but you would condemn me as a priest, even though I still cherish an unbroken virginity that I dedicated to the Lord many years ago. I am a celibate priest, like most priests, who lives out a single-hearted love of God, a love that expresses itself in worship and service. You may have accepted Jesus Christ four years ago as your Lord and Savior. You might have invoked the blood of the Lamb to wash away your sins. But it still matters what you say and do and think. Faith is not a club with which to beat others over the head. Faith is surrendering our lives into the hands of God and divine providence. The difference between sinners in the Church from those outside is that a believer is a sinner forgiven. I hear none of that in your arrogant witness.

EVETTE: 1 John 3:5-10, “and ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinners not: whosoever sinners hath not seen him, neither known him. Little let no man deceive you: he that forth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinners from the beginning. For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever us born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that Loveth not his brother.”

FATHER JOE: Okay, I fixed of couple of typos, but I fear that it still is not an entirely accurate rendering of the KJV. Let me offer the New American Catholic translation for clarity sake (the translators were Catholic, Protestant and Jewish):

“Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him. Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God. In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother. For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another” (1 John 3:4-11).

We belong to Christ and this is distinguished against the “lawlessness” that belongs to any who oppose Christ (antichrist). We are not hostile to Christ but love him. Christians might not escape sin but they are aware that it damages or severs their friendship with God. Catholicism speaks about this as either venial or mortal sin. Those who remain in their sinful manner of life show that they really do not belong to the Lord. That is why we are called to be faithful. Such a state is sustained by faith and the abiding grace of God. The sacramental life and God’s mercy in the Church is a way for believers to maintain the “seed” or life in the Spirit. In other words, Christ is alive in them. It may be you read the wrong message in the Hebraic way of speaking, because such here does not support the notion of “once saved, always saved.” Faith can sour. Such is the terrible truth that has been realized, among the ministers and congregants of all the denominations, ecclesial communities and churches. Of course, as long as there is the breath of life, a repentant sinner can come home again.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Evangelization | Leave a Comment »

Responding to a Catholic Hater # 2

Posted on February 10, 2013 by Father Joe

EVETTE: In Acts 20:28, Paul speaks on the role of preachers and ministers to “…feed the church of God….” He didn’t say the Catholic Church; but feed the Church of God.

FATHER JOE: The word “Catholic” means worldwide or universal. St. Ignatius of Antioch used the word “katholikos” in his epistle to the believers of Smyrna written around 107 AD. The context makes it clear that the word was used for the Church as far back as the last quarter of the first century in the Christian era. This is the one-and-the-same Church as established by Christ and led by the Apostles.

EVETTE: Furthermore, there is no place in the bible where we are instructed to pray to Mary or any of the saints of old.

FATHER JOE: Asking saints to pray for us is no different than my praying for you. The saints are alive and they intercede for others; it is very simple and logical. The mystery of the resurrection means that mortal death does not bring an end to our existence and caring for others. Turning to Mary, the fact that many people open their hearts to her in prayer was prophesied at the Presentation in the Temple. “The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed’” (Luke 2:33-35).

EVETTE: Jesus said in Matthew 11:28, “come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” We are to cry out to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; all others are idols. The word admonishes us to “flee from idolatry” (1 Cor. 10:14).

FATHER JOE: Our Lord takes upon his own shoulders the yoke of sin so that we might know healing and forgiveness. Jesus is indeed the Prince of Peace. Catholicism has a central devotion to Christ; however, the Lord does not dismiss the corporate dynamic of faith, either. Jesus, himself, did not do everything alone but called to himself his apostles and disciples. He shared with them the truth and extended to his apostles something of his authority. Jesus teaches us how to pray and gives us the OUR FATHER. He also sends his HOLY SPIRIT upon the Church and we also pray, “Come, Spirit, come!” Would you reduce the other divine persons of the Sacred Trinity to idols? As I have explained many times, all prayer has as its proper object, almighty God. However, we can ask our brothers and sisters, living and dead, to pray for and with us. Just as a person might speak to a deceased spouse or parent while visiting a grave; we call upon the saints as members of our spiritual family. They are not worshipped and they are not false idols. Depictions of the saints are no more idols than a photograph of your child kept in the wallet.

EVETTE: Roman Catholicism is full of poison. In the Church of God, there is NO SIN. Can you say that about the Catholic Church?

FATHER JOE: The offers us the saving sacraments. The Eucharist is the antidote to all the poisons of hate and selfishness. The Church gives medicine for the soul, not poison. The Church is holy because Christ is holy. Church members are sinners who seek the mercy of our Lord. Jesus called sinners not the righteous (Luke 5:32). The Church does the same. Do you regard yourself as perfect and without sin? If so, then I would suggest that you look at yourself closer in the mirror. The self-righteous Pharisee thought he was justified too, but he was wrong. He was also quick to condemn others. We read:

“He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. ‘Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted’” (Luke 18:9-14).

To be continued…

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Church, Evangelization | Leave a Comment »

Is the New HHS Compromise a Real Compromise?

Posted on February 5, 2013 by Father Joe

Here is the HHS Compromise, be attentive because it gets complicated: “With respect to self-insured group health plans, the eligible organization would notify the third party administrator, which in turn would automatically work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants. The costs of both the health insurance issuer and third party administrator would be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees that insurers pay.”

Since the Archdiocese is self-insured, this would in effect mean that some of our employees would have to be insured by an outside organization, either in whole or in part. Look at all the actors in this play: (1) the Church; (2) the third party administrator; (3) an outside health insurance issuer; (4) the federal government; (5) the supplier of services; and (6) the insured person. The user fees are essentially a tax to insure that contraceptives are free and to pay the third party administrator. What happens to the viability of the self-insurance program if people opt out for the third party insurer?

In any case, I still think people are going to pay more for heart and blood-pressure medicine to make up the cost for free contraceptives. What insurance company will cover just contraception, sterilization and abortifacients without funds to shift from other medical coverage? I doubt federal fees with be sufficient. It will be exploited. Is the Church still morally culpable if we collaborate with other agents in such a scheme? Are we culpable for money given to the government to pay the insurance companies to supply people with contraceptive services?

Given the intransigence of the administration with insisting that health care include free contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization; I cannot say that I trust the latest offer of exemption to the Church and associated religious entities. It seems to me that religious liberty is still very much threatened. Remember, this is the same administration which sought jurisdiction over ministerial assignments; no doubt supposing that if they lost one ridiculous or outrageous battle, it would make churchmen more passive about what was viewed as a lesser campaign. I think they were genuinely surprised by men like Cardinal Dolan. Suddenly Catholic bishops had teeth and could bite back.

I suspect this newest offer is to convince the bishops of a need to see the dentist. The administration still insists that the agenda of Planned Parenthood will become the official policy of government. No matter how you spin it, that means a confrontation with the Church and the Gospel of Life.

I was amazed that some critics and churchmen quickly rejoiced and sang Hallelujah when the revised policy was announced. We must not return to a posture of passivity and ineffective opposition to Big Brother and modernity. More level-headed religious leaders argue that we need to look at this offer closely. It may be a trick. It seems to me, upon closer examination, that there is no miracle break-through or adequate accommodation. The shell-game continues.

The question proposed is this: can such a policy be mandated against Church institutions with religious and moral reservations? The response of the administration seems to be that some institutions have more of a claim upon religious liberty than others. If the previous offer only preserved such liberty within the walls of the churches, this new policy will only add the porch or parking lot. Churches, individually or corporately, are protected, as are religious orders, but the rest is still up for grabs. Again, this administration has a very narrow notion of what constitutes “church.” Ministries in the area of community service are understood entirely within the matrix of secular humanism. President Obama’s religious vision is wholly a horizontal one (earth-bound) with little or nothing of the vertical or transcendent. In other words, God made us— great; but WE make the rules.”

We still have a fight on our hands because of the indiscriminate outreach of our religious charities, hospitals and schools. This element of the policy has not really changed. Okay, even if self-insured, we would not be required to pay “directly” for the contraceptive coverage; however, we still have to find other insurers to dirty their hands for us. The cooperation with evil becomes more remote but they will still be our agents.

Throughout it has saddened me that we have stressed the religious liberty of the Church as an institution but not the same rights of individual believers and citizens. There is no exemption for them and their businesses. It is bad enough that pro-life groups, EWTN, the Knights of Columbus and others might be forced to comply; however, what about the good Catholic entrepreneur who bakes donuts or fixes cars or cuts the grass. There are no exemptions at all for them. I know, some will say that they could fight and pay out hard-earned money to litigate for themselves. But this is America, our rights are supposed to be guaranteed, not entitlements for which we have to fight and beg.

I bet if it had not been for the courts, we would not have seen even these concessions. No doubt the administration wants to promote a particular public perception: a liberal government wanting to dialogue about national healthcare and a backward-thinking Church wanting to deprive couples of pills and condoms. President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius know full well that many if not most American Catholics are out of sync with Church leadership and moral teachings. As in Maryland with the proposition for same-sex marriages, they hope to exploit this advantage and show that they are the true magisterium, not the ecclesial shepherds largely abandoned by their flocks. As much as the USCCB has sought to frame this debate under the banner of religious liberty and the First Amendment, the administration has been highly effective in convincing many people that it is about reproductive choices and health. God help us!

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Politics, Sexuality, Social Justice | 7 Comments »

Talking to an Atheist on Original Sin & Evolution

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Father Joe

FATHER JOE: A few years ago I made a response to a post at THE GOD COMPLEX (an atheist site) about a faulty reading on the doctrine of Original Sin. Much was made of the fact that I said the Catholic Church “allows” believers to accept the theory of evolution. He was sarcastic instead of politely recognizing that there need be no fight upon this issue.

ANDROO: You allow followers to accept evolution. How nice of you. It’s good to see that the catholic church no longer shackles its faithful with burdensome chains of ignorance, well, at least not in the case of evolution anyway.

FATHER JOE: This illustrates why discussion with non-believers today can oftentimes be very difficult. Everything is in the attack mode. Did their parents force them to go to church? Did sister beat them with a ruler? What gives? Like certain fundamentalist Protestants, they treat matters like the inquisition and Galileo’s house arrest like they happened last Tuesday. The fact that the Church preserved learning and that many great scientists are faithful Catholics is ignored. When I voiced a Catholic view of evolution he seemed supportive until I wrote that “Adam and Eve are more than metaphors for Catholics.” To this he found objection.

ANDROO: This is actually pretty good. We can agree on everything right up until this part right here: ‘More than metaphor’ is truth. There is no gray area of speech where something is ‘kind of’ a metaphor and ‘kind of not a metaphor’. Either it is truth or it is metaphor. As I said in my original post, either Adam and Eve existed or they did not. If you say they are more than a metaphor than you are saying that they are truth. If you say they are truth then by default you are saying that Evolution did not occur because anyone who knows the slightest bit about evolution knows that there was no first man and woman in a magically perfect garden with manipulative talking snakes.

FATHER JOE:

It may be the confusion here is due to the way language is used and how history is understood. A scientist wants words to have one meaning so as to narrow the descriptive parameters. Theologians may also prefer such words when trying to strictly define beliefs and to eradicate misunderstandings. However, often the language of faith is that of parable and poetry. The assembled words are multivalent. My critic probably reads “metaphor” as strictly fictional. He seems to be objecting to the notion that Adam and Eve had any existence whatsoever. But, he would certainly have to grant the existence of the first true humans and/or proto-humans. Nevertheless, the way the ancients understood history is a far cry from our “video replay” mentality today. History and the stories passed down become immediately interpretive. What is read into the stories is judged as real and meaningful. When I said that Adam and Eve were more than metaphor, I expressed a belief in the existence of our first parents—not that they were simply blond haired, blue-eyed white people waiting to be fooled by a snake.

I wrote that “We would not usually talk about the fall or the infusion of a rational soul when discussing such concerns as evolution and prehistory with non-believers.” He then argues that we are holding opposing contradictory beliefs as true.

ANDROO: If I simultaneously held to be true two totally contradictory beliefs I wouldn’t talk about it with anyone either. Let me illustrate:

This is belief number one: “allows believers to accept the theory of evolution, but such is also taught in our schools and universities”
This is belief number two: “Adam and Eve are more than metaphors for Catholics”

Belief number one, and belief number two are diametrically opposed Father Joe, they cannot co-exist at all and no amount of vague definitions or hand waving can change that.

FATHER JOE: The problem here is that there is no strict syllogism. The propositions need not contradict one another. Admittedly, if Catholics strictly applied the biblical story there would some conflicts. But one need not be a stickler on the details to get the basic information that it is intended to transmit: that God is our Creator, the creation is good and that evil is the result of man’s misuse of his freedom and a violation of his stewardship. Nothing of this stands in violation to the notion that human beings may have evolved from proto-humans or more primitive animal forms, particularly primates.

ANDROO: This type of thing reminds me of the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, specifically this: “…the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

FATHER JOE: I have both read and written upon Orwell’s novel, but the Church seeks not to further “doublethink” but to do justice to all the disciplines of truth while proclaiming the Gospel. Unlike certain Protestant groups which claimed that scientific and philosophical views in conflict with faith did not matter; we seek to give both faith and reason their proper place. The critic here fails to appreciate this because he is blinded by his own bigotry against theism. Making proper distinctions is not Orwellian subterfuge, but is an element of proper and clear logical thinking. He did my explanations a severe injustice and literally bypassed them altogether without any analysis. We might still disagree, but should recognize that for most aspects of science, we could be on the same page. Science and atheism are not necessarily linked; indeed, most scientists in the history of the world have possessed some kind of faith, everything from Christianity and Judaism to variations of Deism.

ANDROO: So which is the reality Father Joe? Adam and Eve or Evolution? Is the entirety of man sinful because of the acts of the first man, or is the entirety of man sinful because you say so? Or, like Doublethink, are both of them true situationally? Is evolution true when you talk to me and Adam and Eve true when you take the podium on Sundays? you know, even if it was the case that You were a fundamentalist and you believed only in Adam and Eve I would be fine with that. That is a more logical and rational stance than trying to believe both at the same time. I mean, if you’re going to believe something wild and outlandish you might as well really commit to it and ignore all of the evidence all of the time and just be a total fundie. Saying that the story was just total metaphor would be fine too. But you didn’t go with either of those options.

FATHER JOE: The reality is greater and more wondrous than you would credit. Adam and Eve, or whatever you want to call the first parents, represents the beginning of humanity on this planet. I cannot tell you if they were dark or light skinned, hairy or bald, tall or incredibly short. They might have walked with a peculiar stride. They were part of nature and yet represented something special and new on the scene. There was a fall, and I would be at a loss to say what exactly happened. There was a test and our ancestors failed. They were the first and would set the pattern for all who would come after them. The first true human has a sense of himself called to a higher dignity. For the first time there is a creature that can respond to God in kind. He has the power of a self-reflective mind and a freedom of will. He is not a necessary slave to instinct. However, instead of embracing the mystery of his calling and dignity, he reverted to the bestial—the way of least resistance—and forfeited a unique relationship with the Creator. We can only imagine what things might have been like had mankind initially said YES to God. Maybe death would have been as easy as walking through a door from one room into another? In any case, it did not happen and the pattern of sin and death would be replayed over and over again. Nothing is denied from a study of pre-history, archeology, and the current interest in DNA. As I said, God could certainly form the human body from pre-existing forms using such things as natural selection and mutations. We would not usually talk about the fall and the infusion of a soul because these are matters that science cannot place under a microscope or discover in the fossil record. It must not contradict or invalidate good science; but science itself has neither the tools nor the perspective to say much about such religious views. The disciplines study different things.

ANDROO: What really bothers me though, is that when presented with the evidence, and the impossibility of both things being true, you retreat to this: “Obviously there are still mysteries left to be discovered and it is our expectation that revelation and science are not in opposition.”

FATHER JOE:

At this point I must apologize because I assumed the critic would understand the usage of my terms. This statement here proves me wrong. There is no opposition and I am not using the word “mystery” as in regard to something not yet discovered. Theologians use the word MYSTERY in a different way. The seven sacraments were originally called the divine mysteries. When we talk about the mystery of God or of creation, we are not talking about questioning God’s existence or how this relates to the natural world. The sublime revelations of God are called “mysteries.” Theological mysteries can be known to a certain extent but given their source in an infinite God it is not possible for us to exhaust their meaning. The old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia had this to say:

Relations of natural and supernatural truth

(a) Superiority of the Supernatural

The mysteries contained in supernatural revelation are not simply disconnected truths lying beyond the realm of natural things, but a higher, heavenly world, a mystical cosmos whose parts are united in a living bond. (Scheeben, “Dogmatik”, I, 25.) Even in those parts of this vast system that have been revealed to us there is a wonderful harmony. In his great work “Die Mysterien des Christenthums”, Scheeben has sought to show the logical connection in the supernatural order by considering its supreme mystery, the internal communication of Divine life in the Trinity, as the model and ideal of the external communication to the creature of the Divine life of grace and glory. The knowledge of the supernatural is more excellent than any human wisdom, because, although incomplete, it has a nobler object, and through its dependence on the unfailing word of God possesses a greater degree of certitude. The obscurity which surrounds the mysteries of faith results from the weakness of the human intellect, which, like the eye that gazes on the sun, is blinded by the fulness of light.

(b) Harmony of Natural and Supernatural Truth

Since all truth is from God, there can be no real warfare between reason and revelation. Supernatural mysteries as such cannot be demonstrated by reason, but the Christian apologist can always show that the arguments against their possibility are not conclusive (St. Thos., “Suppl. Boeth. de trinitate”, Q. ii, a. 3). The nature of God which is infinite and eternal, must be incomprehensible to an intelligence that is not capable of perfect knowledge (cf. Zigliara, “Propædeutica”, I, ix). The powerlessness of science to solve the mysteries of nature, a fact that Rationalists admit, shows how limited are the resources of the human intellect (cf. Daumer, “Des Reich des Wundersamen und Geheimnissvollen,” Ratisbon, 1872). On the other hand reason is able not only to recognize wherein consists the special mysteriousness of a supernatural truth, but also to dispel to some extent the obscurity by means of natural analogies and to show the fittingness of the mystery by reasons of congruity (Council of Cologne, 1860). This was done with great success by the Fathers and the Scholastic theologians. A famous example is St. Thomas’ argument ex convenientia for the Divine processions in the Trinity (Summa Theol., I, QQ. xxvii-xxxi). (See FAITH, REASON, REVELATION.)

Here my response changes from third person to first…

ANDROO: You’re essentially saying that you just don’t know how both things can be true, but you expect that they are. That is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I have ever heard.

FATHER JOE: No, this is not what I was saying at all. The dishonesty is yours for failing to pick up on so much that I made clear in regard to Catholic respect for science, if not for atheism. Maybe this confusion is a symptom of your atheism? You have no soul, or at least refuse to allow your soul to express itself. When I speak of mystery, I am remarking upon that which causes awe and wonder. The fact that we can even have this discussion is incredible. Our very existence and that of our universe should by my way of thinking be highly unlikely; but, here we are! That is absolutely incredible, no less or more so than the religious beliefs I hold to be true.

ANDROO: It is common for religious people to ridicule scientists, and even you yourself have done it Father Joe, for not actually knowing everything and having mere ‘theories’ (this displays an ingnorance as to what a theory actually is in scientific terms though) as to the creation of the universe or the development of certain traits or species.

FATHER JOE: I am not presumptuous of scientists and their theories. I acknowledge my ignorance just as you are blind to yours. When theories are proven, we have facts. However, facts always lead to more theories, and sometimes even to the revision of our so-called facts. I have never ridiculed scientists. I am critical of you as an atheist. So far I have seen no sign that you are a scientist. We could talk science, but you have chosen to ridicule religion. Indeed, you have dedicated much of your poor blog to this cause.

ANDROO: Isn’t saying ‘It’s a mystery, but I expect that I’m right’ even worse than what you mock scientists for? Scientists work to solve problems, and come up with ideas when they don’t know the answers. then they experiment and study to see if their answers ideas and theories are correct.

FATHER JOE: I have already explained about your faulty and impoverished understanding of the word “mystery.” Scientists have never been mocked by me. They have my highest respect and admiration. All men and women who seek truth of any sort are kindred souls to me. But you are not really interested in that on your site, are you? You are all about mockery and bigotry. You hate the Church. You think Christians are pathetic. And you do the one thing that no true seeker of truth would ever do; you have closed your mind.

ANDROO: You Father Joe, when presented with a problem just give up and say ‘It’s a mystery, I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure I’m right so let’s not talk about it.” I for one, would rather say “I don’t know yet” and try to find the answer myself.

FATHER JOE: Excuse me, to whom are you talking? I have given more of a response than probably anyone else has ever given you. It was my hope that you would see that not all religion was the same. Faith need not invalidate science (or visa versa). I am a parish priest who studies, albeit as an amateur, religion, philosophy, astronomy, physics, history and pre-history, evolutionary science, the classics of literature, etc. I did not expect any great degree of human respect, but I was somewhat surprised at how tenaciously you would grab at any and every straw to promote your personal atheism at the expense of sound argument and a true picture of Catholic Christianity.

The Original Discussion

ANDROO THE ATHEIST:

According to Catholics, man is created sinful and must struggle his entire life against his powerful tendency to sin in order to be good enough to enter heaven. In an effort to help us out, God sent Jesus down here to suffer and die and then go back to heaven. This ‘ultimate’ sacrifice somehow makes forgiveness possible. So lets take a detailed look at this, if that is even is possible. First, why is man sinful? According to Catholic.com our sin descends from Adam and Eve.

The doctrine of original sin is that “in” Adam all have sinned. / This sin of Adam’s was not your ordinary sin. This was a sin that affected all mankind forever. This sin changed the course of human history. It did not just affect Adam personally; it also affected his human nature—which means it affected our nature, since we inherited it from him. / Adam was tested by God not just as Adam but as the representative of the whole human race, since we are all the seed of Adam. Just as David and Goliath met on the battlefield as champions of their respective armies, Adam was our champion. If your champion lost in battle to the other army’s champion.

A champion whose enemy was none other than god apparently, the odds seem to have been against Adam from the start. But I digress, here’s one more.

These passages are all about the Church’s doctrine of original sin. Because of Adam’s sin, all men were made subject to sin and death. That is Scripture’s teaching on the doctrine of original sin.

Now, because I generally don’t like to pull from just one source, here are some quotes from my old friend Father Joe These are comments from an entirely unrelated article, but they illustrate that the belief in Adam, the Garden of Eden and original sin is more than metaphorical amongst catholics and their religious figureheads.

If Adam had not sinned, the course of world events would have been quite different. However, we cannot be sure what would have happened. It might have meant the immediate consummation of all things. Natural laws might have been suspended. Death might have become an easy transition from this world to the next… indeed, not a true death (as we know it) at all. / Mankind fell in Adam. He was called to respond to God as one made in his image and likeness. Instead, he preferred the path of least resistance, the way of the brute.

Moderate religious people of any faith always say that science and religion are entirely compatible. The above quotes clearly illustrate that that is not true. How exactly can one accept evolution and the age of the earth as fact while simultaneously accepting as fact the story of Adam and Eve? Those two things are diametrically opposed, if one happened the other simply could not have happened. This is a fact, only one of those events could have transpired, and the overwhelming mountain of evidence is in favor of evolution. Sorry Adam, you just didn’t exist. Since we know, as fact, that there was no Adam and Eve, no Garden of Eden, and no lively games of Fetch between Adam and a Tyrannosaur, where then, does that leave the doctrine of Original Sin? Well, if Adam did not exist, then he could not have betrayed God and he could not have passed that sin onto us all. Is it possible then, that mankind isn’t sinful by Nature, and that the Catholic Church just wants you to think that in order to perpetuate a cycle of guilt and forgiveness that constantly leads people back to the Church?

Well, MAYBE the whole Adam and Eve thing is just some sort of confusing metaphor. Maybe God was a little busy when he wrote that part of the bible and didn’t make it clear that he wasn’t being literal. Well, that just leaves us with another problem, the problem of sin and justice. Let’s say I had a son, and I decided to have both of his arms amputated at the shoulder because I wanted him that way. Now lets say that I take him out into the back yard and constantly throw footballs at him. Would it be fair of me to get angry with him because he can’t catch any of them? Would it be justice lock him in a smoldering basement for rest of his life because he cant catch any of these footballs? If Adam and Eve are only a metaphor, than that leaves God as the one responsible for our sinful nature. After all, God created us exactly the way he wanted us to be, a omnipotent and omniscient being could do no less. So, if god made us sinful by nature, is it fair that he punishes us for giving in to sin? Is it fair that he sentences us to hell for giving in a desire he gave us in the first place? I don’t think so.

One final thought though, if we truly are sinful by nature, and it is ‘natural’ for us to sin, and God is forcing us to act righteously, than isn’t that coercion?

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.

Seems like god is the bad guy no matter how you look at it.

FATHER JOE:

The Catholic Church not only allows believers to accept the theory of evolution, but such is also taught in our schools and universities. Unlike Protestant fundamentalists and certain Catholic traditionalists, we have long been open to the notion that the human body may have developed from pre-existing forms. Further, while men probably ran with mammoths and faced the extinct sabertooth, I do not think human beings were around when the dinosaurs or their precursors roamed the earth.

Adam and Eve are more than metaphors for Catholics, but there are certainly metaphorical elements in the story. We would not usually talk about the fall or the infusion of a rational soul when discussing such concerns as evolution and prehistory with non-believers. Rather, we would stress those things in which we find agreement from fossil and/or genetic evidence. Catholics would not hold opposing propositions as true; however, different matters are studied and each discipline is respected in its own right. Obviously there are still mysteries left to be discovered and it is our expectation that revelation and science are not in opposition. Instead they look at the basic questions from different perspectives. I would not use the Bible as a science textbook; neither would I use Darwin or Einstein as prophets of faith.

I am not trying to prove God to you, anymore than you could make me question my faith. I just hope we can live in a world where believers and non-believers can work together and live in peace and respectful civility.

Filed under: Catholic, Creation, Sin | 4 Comments »

Faith & Values in the News

Posted on September 20, 2012 by Father Joe

Religious Banners Removed at Catholic School

God forbid that young people at school events should get a taste of traditional American liberties, like freedom of religion and freedom of speech… NOT! Schools can teach science and the faith of atheism but are to make no mention a Creator. Schools can teach safe “promiscuous” sex and give away condoms, but not a penny is available for abstinence education. Schools are forbidden to teach the 10 Commandments and then wonder why youth misbehave and get in trouble with the law. All manner of vulgarity is tolerated but not a bible verse on a sheet… yep, these girls are real trouble-makers, but the right kind. When Islamic religious fanatics burn the flag, destroy property and commit murder… we target our sights upon peaceful Christian cheerleaders at a school football game. Ah, the world is insane!

Muslim Prayer Room Opens at Catholic High School

How many Catholic chapels are there in Islamic schools? Where does courtesy end and religious indifferentism begin? How does one reconcile this with the insistence that “Catholic identity” is not at risk in our parochial schools? Do the Jewish children get their private prayer space as well? What about the Wiccans and Satanists? Do they get chapels to honor the goddess and/or the horned beast? Certainly, we would not want to discriminate or be judgmental… would we? Ah, the plight of radical tolerance!

7-Election 2012

It does not look good for Romney… vote with a cup of coffee. The trouble is that the Tea Party is into another type of drink!

Ex-Priest Sues the Catholic Church to Clear His Name

If what he says is true, I really feel sorry for this guy and there needs to be justice.

The New York Times Remembers Sister Mary Rose

Rest in peace, Sister, and many thanks for saving children and Covenant House.

Children Freak When Disney Channel Cartoon is Interrupted by Porn

If trash television were not trasmitted at all then such accidents would not happen. The truth is that our children are exposed to unhealthy and vulgar images all the time. We cannot trust television to babysit our children. It is a compromised media. The providers are more interested in making money, even with virtual prostitution, then in helping parents to raise kids of good moral character and virtue. In any case, if adults are themselves corrupted by this media, then how can they pass on anything of value without the poison of hypocrisy?

Filed under: Atheism, Bible, Catholic, Celibacy, Conscience, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Family, Modesty, News, Politics, Religion, Religious Liberty, Schools, Sexuality, Sin, Youth | Leave a Comment »

	Bruce Markowitz on QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
	juliette on Questions & Answers About…
	Samantha on Impotence & Marriage
	Sam on Ask a Priest
	maria on Ask a Priest

Blogger Priest

Our Blogger

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Limbo in Limbo, or Suburb of Hell?

Another Upset Woman About Married Priests, WHY?

Would a Good God Command the Murder of Children?

More Arguments with Anti-Catholic Bigots

Comments About Demons & Exorcisms

Responding to a Catholic Hater #3

Responding to a Catholic Hater # 2

Talking to an Atheist on Original Sin & Evolution

Faith & Values in the News

Calendar

The Awalt Papers

Meta

Archdiocese

Blogroll

Follow “Blogger Priest”

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31