July | 2014 | Blogger Priest

Pope Sixtus IV (Bad Pope?)

Posted on July 15, 2014 by Father Joe

The anti-Catholic bigot Laurence states:

Pope Sixtus IV financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders. He used the papacy to enrich himself and his family, for no less than eight cardinals were his nephews, some being given the position of cardinal even as a boy.

My response:

Francesco della Rovere was born of poor parents in 1414. Destined from his you for the Franciscans, he showed great success at his philosophical and theological studies. A scholar, he was made a cardinal in 1467. The conclave assembled on the death of Pope Paul II elected him pope under the name Sixtus IV.

The wars mentioned in the quote were to win back the Eastern churches of Turkey. However, he could not enkindle sufficient interest in a new crusade. There continued tension with France where papal decrees could only be promulgated with royal consent.

Problems emerged, as the quote suggests, with nepotism. The Pope’s nephew, Cardinal Rafael Riario, sought to overthrow the Medici of Florence. To his credit, he placed Florence under interdict for the assasinations of Giuliano de’ Medici. A two year war erupted with Florence. Ferrara found allies among the Italian princes and they forced the pope to make peace.

The ramifications of favors for family stained his legacy as pope. Despite the deference given to personal family members, he made 23 cardinals representative of the many important families: Giuliano della Rovere, Stefano Nardini, Pedro Gonsalvez de Mendoza, Giovanni Battista Cybo (later Pope Innocent VIII), Giovanni Arcimboldi, Philibert Hugonet, Giorgio da Costa, Charles de Bourbon l’ancien, Pierre de Foix le jeune, Girolamo Basso della Rovere, Gabriele Rangoni, Pietro Foscari, Juan of Aragon, Raffaele Sansoni Riario, Domenico della Rovere, Paolo Fregoso, Giovanni Battista Savelli, Giovanni Colonna, Giovanni Conti, Juan Moles de Margarit, Giovanni Giacomo Sclafenati, Giovanni Battista Orsini and Ascanio Maria Sforza-Viscon.

However, again as evidence as how God can use weak instruments for his will, Pope Sixtus IV suppressed the abuses of the Inquisition. A patron of the arts, he had the famous Sistine Chapel built and he renovated the library. The living conditions of Rome improved. The Pope was blameless in his private life despite the charges of his enemies. He enriched the Church for the ages.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Pope | Leave a comment »

The Pope, Pedophiles & a Newspaper with an Agenda

Posted on July 14, 2014 by Father Joe

Why are we suffering again with this “he said” and “he did not say” business? Did no one learn a lesson from the earlier confused ramblings of this aging atheist who interviewed the Pope soon after the election? Does no one keep reliable transcripts or recordings? I had hoped the Vatican would learn now that the left-leaning publications are not to be trusted. They want scandal and will spin anything if it gets what they want, in other words, a diminished Church and lots of publicity and sales. I can appreciate that the Pope would call sexual abuse “leprosy in our house.” That is not surprising. But did he really say there were abusers among the cardinals? I really doubt it. They would have been expunged by now. It would signify the worse possible self-recrimination. Already the Vatican is saying the statement was inaccurate. In other words, the newspaper La Repubblica is LYING! Let us call it what it is. This being the case, why should we regard any of the rest as a reliable interview with Pope Francis?

Of course the damage does not end there. The paper’s founder Eugenio Scalfari offers the article as a “reconstruction” of his one-hour conversation with the Pope. This is the day of digital recording; why must we suffer inaccurate and controversial reconstructions? The Pope is quoted as saying, “Many of my collaborators who fight with me (against pedophilia) reassure me with reliable statistics that say that the level of pedophilia in the Church is about two percent. This data should hearten me but I tell you that it does not hearten me at all. In fact, I think that it is very grave.” The world press grabbed this statement and headlines blasted across the globe that two percent of priests were pedophiles or child molesters! While he probably meant throughout the whole Church, not just the ministries, what is the basis for such an assessment? Is it the statistical average in the world population, Catholic or not? I do not recall any polling or phone calls asking about orientation or perversions. Are these just made-up numbers? Again, if we knew for sure we had potential child molesters in the ranks of the priests, why have they not been removed? Are we just guessing that they might be there given past misconduct?

People are doing the math. As of 2012, if there are some 414,000 priests then at 2%, how many pedophiles does that make? The answer is 8,280! I do not believe it. I think the figures are mere conjecture. Seminary formation would have prevented many such men from being ordained. Others have already been ousted. I would contend that most priests today are no threat to children or other people at risk.

Again the Vatican issued a warning statement that Scalfari has a habit of reconstructing interviews from memory, not recording or taking notes. Why he is one of Italy’s best known Italian journalists is beyond me. It seems to me that he is highly unreliable. The Vatican is telling us that the newspaper is seeking to “manipulate naïve readers.” If that is the case, then why talk to this anti-Catholic newspaper, anyway? It makes no sense to me. These are not our friends. Indeed, it seems that both the Church and the truth are casualties to such interviews.

When recently talking to the victims of abuse, the Holy Father rightly spoke about this as a cause for weeping and how there was a real need for reparation. He compared predator priests to the evil of cults and black Masses. He vowed zero tolerance and that bishops would be held accountable for how the dealt with charges and situations. I would add that we must also be careful not to scapegoat the Church’s ministers as wicked and dangerous men. This would do a disservice to the many saints who sacrifice everything for God and his people.

SLATE: Pope Francis Interview on Pedophilia and Celibacy in the Church

WASHINGTON POST: Did Pope Francis Really Tell a 90 Year Old Atheist Journalist that 1 in 5 Priests are Pedophiles?

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Atheism, Catholic, News, Sexuality, Sin | 5 Comments »

Pope Boniface VIII (Bad Pope?)

Posted on July 13, 2014 by Father Joe

The anti-Catholic bigot Laurence states:

Pope Boniface VIII maintained his position through lavish distribution of stolen money. He was quoted saying, “to enjoy oneself and lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one’s hands together.”

My response:

I can well appreciate that you are citing bigoted and ignorant sources. However, in doing so, you commit the sin of false witness against a dead brother Christian. There are bad popes, but the most for which one might fault Pope Boniface would be his tact and temper. You are like the old lecherous men lying and bring condemnation to the pure Susanna (Daniel 13).

This citation is a calumnious slander of a Pope who was wholly orthodox, albeit with a quick temper and an emphasis upon papal temporal authority that would cause an escalation of tensions with ambitious kings and princes. He hoped that the papacy might become a source for European unity. King Philip of France instead saw him instead as an obstacle to his influence and the finances required for waging war. The words quoted here are those of his enemies, seeking to belittle the Pope, in order to justify their disobedience and later the attack upon his person which would no doubt speed his death. After his death (1303), the French would have their way with the wrongful relocation of the papacy to Avignon (1309).

The French Council of State was called to an extraordinary session (12 March, 1303) and Guillaume de Nogaret appealed to Philip, declaring Pope Boniface an intruder, false pope, a simonist, robber, and heretic. The Pope had insisted that the clergy could not be taxed without his approval. He had also promulgated the papal bull (1302) Unam Sanctam, where the Pope stipulated that it “is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.” Lies were made up to discredit the Pope and to undermine his authority. When an assembly was called on June 13 at the Louvre in Paris to investigate the charges, the papal legate was imprisoned to prevent a response. It was a packed court. Aligned with Philip, Guillaume de Plaisians asked for a General Council and made 29 charges against the Pope. No credible historian today takes the charges seriously. It was loaded with every sin that could be imagined: infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, death of Celestine V, etc. That August, Boniface cleared himself by his solemn oath of the charges brought against him at Paris. He saw it for what it was, an attempt to erode his Apostolic authority.

In 1303, King Philip sent an army led by Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna to arrest Pope Boniface while on retreat Anagni. The Pope refused to resign. They sought to drag him back to France to face a council and trial on the trumped charges. The Pope responded with great courage and faith: “Since I am betrayed like the Savior, and my end is nigh, at least I shall die as Pope.” Thereupon he ascended his throne, clad in the pontifical ornaments, the tiara on his head, the keys in one hand, a cross in the other, held close to his breast. Confronting the angry men-at-arms, he looked down upon the Colonnas, saying, “Here is my head, here is my neck; I will patiently bear that I, a Catholic and lawful pontiff and Vicar of Christ, be condemned and deposed by the Paterini [heretics]; I desire to die for Christ’s faith and His Church.” While the story was spread that he killed himself by “gnawing through his own arm” and “bashing his skull into a wall,” the exhumation of the body showed no signs of such treatment. He went three days without food or water. Those who allowed the Pope’s capture regretted it. And the invaders were repelled and the Pope returned to Rome (September 13). But his spirit and health had been compromised. He died on October 11 after taking the sacraments and making the profession of faith.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Pope John XII (Bad Pope?)

Posted on July 12, 2014 by Father Joe

The anti-Catholic bigot Laurence states:

Pope John XII was an immoral man and whose palace was likened to a brothel. The bishop of Cremona, Luitprand said, “No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows – they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul.” Pope John XXII was said to have seduced and violated three hundred nuns. He must have had a strong and insatiable libido for he kept a harem of no less than two hundred girls. He was called “the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne.” A Vatican record says this about him, “His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes… wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ… he was publicly called the Devil incarnate.”

My response:

The younger Alberic was the absolute ruler at Rome and he made the Roman nobles promise that upon the next vacancy they would elect his son, Octavius to the papacy. He took office in 955 at the age of 18. This reunited the spiritual and temporal authority of Rome in one person. It is true that he was a coarse and immoral man. The Ecclesiastical States were occupied and war erupted with Pope John XII allied with the German King Otto I (made emperor). However, he later sought to betray the emperor. Bishop Liutprand of Cremona (quoted above) was part of the emperor’s entourage. The Roman nobles promised that no future pope would be elected or consecrated without the emperor’s consent. A synod of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened at St. Peter’s to censure Pope John XII. The Pope was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. The pope refused to meet with them or to recognize their authority. The emperor exposed the pope’s betrayal of their alliance and the synod deposed him. A layman was elected, ordained and consecrated as Pope Leo VIII. However, canons were violated and most regarded his pontificate as invalid. Insurrection broke out and the new Leo VIII fled. Pope John XII retaliated against the churchmen who opposed him. Many good Catholic bishops suffered greatly to bring healing to the Church. In 964 there was another synod at St. Peter’s where Pope Leo VIII was declared invalid and he and all who elected him were excommunicated. The emperor had defeated Berengarius and was going to re-enter Rome when Pope John XII died (May 14, 964).

Both the civil authorities and churchmen did what they could against a bad man who had taken the papacy. However, note that as bad as he was personally, no heretical teachings were introduced against the deposit of faith. We are told that he acted as if he were not a churchman at all and had little concern for spiritual or religious affairs. The Holy Spirit protected the Church, yes even when the worse of men were given roles as shepherds. Such situations as this is why the conclave system with cardinals was created, to have a more organized selection and to take it away from the control of the Roman nobility or other civil authorities.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Pope | Leave a comment »

Pope Sergius III (Bad Pope?)

Posted on July 11, 2014 by Father Joe

The anti-Catholic bigot Laurence states:

Pope Sergius III obtained the papal office by murder. He lived openly with a woman who bore him several illegitimate children. His reign began a period known as “the rule of the harlots.”

My response:

The allegation here goes beyond the certain facts. Consecrated in 904 and died in 911, most of what we know comes from the bias reports of his adversaries. Put forward for the papacy in 898, he failed to get elected and went into retirement. Unhappy that Christopher had taken the papacy by violence; the Romans imprisoned him and asked Sergius to take his place. He declared the ordinations by Formosus as null. Allegations that Sergius placed his two predecessors (Leo V and Christopher) to death or that he had relations with Marozia resulting in an illegitimate son (Pope John XI) are very dubious. The last charge was not made until fifty years after the death of the Pope. Such lies were told to damage his legacy and stand in conflict with what his trusted contemporaries said of him. He expanded the Church in England, defended the Filioque clause against errors of the Eastern churches and restored the Lateran Basilica. The so-called “rule of the harlots” had to do with the emergence of strong or influential women upon the world scene (Theodora, and her daughter Marozia, the mother of Pope John XI). This was viewed by a chauvinistic world as a reversal of the natural order.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Pope, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Faith & Values in the News

Posted on July 10, 2014 by Father Joe

Ebola ‘Totally Out of Control,’ Doctors Without Borders Says

This is not good.

Eve of Destruction for Iraq’s Christians?

Baghdad was once 25% Christian. Now that community has been devastated. Militant Islamic terrorists are taking over. Moderate Moslems are fleeing. Liberty and peace are again the victims. Did our military men and women die in vain?

Woman dies in jail while serving sentence for her kids’ unpaid school fines

Very troubling…

Filed under: News | Leave a comment »

Faith & Values in the News

Posted on July 9, 2014 by Father Joe

Philippine priest in unwed mum outburst faces sanctions

The priest’s outburst was uncharitable and rude; however, is he being censured because of a lack of tact or because he spoke a hard truth about the scandal of sin and the lack of shame today? Guilt is good and serves a purpose, when we are guilty. How else might there be repentance, conversion and amendment of life?

COURT RULES AGAINST SEAL OF CONFESSION

Baton Rouge Diocese Responds to Court Order to Break Seal of Confession

A priest is pledged to face imprisonment, torture or even death before breaking the seal of confession. He can neither affirm or deny what sins are told him. This is serious business. If the courts win, priests could be imprisoned even for the most spurious of allegations or cases, and they would not be able to defend themselves. Stealing gum or committing murder… the seal is the seal. It is a sacred element of the sacrament.

I have trained myself to forget most everything I hear. But (in response to a specific inquiry) the seal would not even allow a priest to say he forgot, for that would imply he heard something. If a priest did recall instances of abuse, murder, etc., he might also not know for sure who told him (behind a screen) or the sins of many might become confused in his mind. No matter if he heard something bad or not, all the priest can do is either remain silent or remind everyone that he is not at liberty to talk about any confessions… period. His silence cannot be taken to mean that he has any damaging knowledge. The seal goes way beyond the professional secrecy of lawyers and doctors. If the priest breaks the seal, he is immediately excommunicated, forfeits his faculties, faces laicization and suffers the prospect of eternal punishment in hell.

The priest may tell the penitent to turn himself in and to get professional help. But the priest would not necessarily delay absolution until such action is made. The priest can urge restitution but often only has the penitent’s word that such would be made. However, even if there is no absolution, the seal applies. Further, the priest risks breaking the seal if he brings up another’s sins again in another setting. He is forbidden to nag penitents after confession about what they should or should not do. Again, the priest must forget and keep the seal. No matter how terrible the sin, the seal is absolute. Anyone who overhears a confession is also under the seal. Recording a confession is a serious sin and breaks the seal. Generally, priests must treat the penitent after confession as if he knows nothing about secret sins. There is NO wiggle room. He can give no hints or insinuations. NOTHING! He cannot break the seal to spare a child, to save a life or to safeguard the Eucharist. He cannot act on anything he hears in the Confessional. For instance, “he cannot show by facial expression or lack of hospitality at a parish picnic that he knows you suffocated your ailing rich grandmother with a pillow.” (No one said that being a priest was easy.)

No Mass said in Mosul for first time in 1,600 years, says Archbishop

Christians are being crucified. 3,000 Christians from Mosul are running for their lives. No Mass this Sunday in Mosul, for the first time in 1,600 years! Do we really appreciate what is going on?

Justices: Can’t make employers cover contraception

Justice!

Commission Recommends Change in Marriage Discipline for Eastern Catholic Priests in U.S.

Left unsaid are repercussions for the Anglican usage Catholics who may also want freedom of their tradition in this regard. Like dominoes, with increased visibility and reunion, people are going to question mandatory celibacy in Roman Catholicism. If these married men can make good priests, people will naturally ask, why must our men have this option closed to them? It is a can of worms that I would never open. Can we make a better and more persuasive case for an exclusively celibate clergy? Can we show that such bests reflects the divine will for the developmental trajectory of holy orders?

Family Sues After Police Fatally Taser 95-Year-Old Man

What were they thinking? It breaks my heart.

Archbishop Sheen’s Reported Miracle Gets Second Vatican Approval

When it comes to miracles, Archbishop Sheen is no slouch… both during his mortal life and afterwards.

Filed under: Faith, Morality, News | Leave a comment »

5. Charged with Consorting with Demons

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Father Joe

The Fifth Scurrilous Mystery

Again and again, Jesus is accused of performing his miracles through demonic agencies. It is never explained why the devil would want to give sight to the blind or make the cripple able to walk. The Pharisees commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by charging that Jesus drove out demons by the power of the prince of demons. It makes no sense. Jesus takes the opportunity to explain why it is important to be in unity with him. Our Lord would also give us a genuine warming about how the devil loves a vacuum. It is not enough to be cleansed or liberated. The space within us must be filled with God’s presence and grace. If God fills us then there is no corner where the devil can hide. The Pharisees would insist they are clean; however, their lack of charity and refusal to see the goodness in Christ and his works would demonstrate that the demonic had invaded their house. If demons are genuinely exorcised, no matter if it is by Jesus or other Jewish exorcists, the real agency is always Almighty God. There are false prophets, even today, who condemn Marian piety and the sacraments as the devil’s work. The devil always exploits spiritual blindness, hypocrisy and malice. These three vices parallel their antidote: genuine truth, sincere fidelity and charity.

Filed under: Prayer | 2 Comments »

4. Commending the Unclean Woman Who Touched Him

Posted on July 7, 2014 by Father Joe

The Fourth Scurrilous Mystery

Ritually unclean because of her bleeding, a woman touches the tassel of his cloak for a healing. She is desperate in that the doctors could not cure her, even after they took all her money. Given that she has suffered so for twelve years, it was a crime under Jewish law for her to approach the Lord. It represented a type of spiritual pollution. When Jesus asked who touched him, she was prepared for public condemnation. Women have been put to death for similar offenses. The crowd was pressing upon Jesus but he knew that power had gone out from him. She falls to his feet trembling. She witnesses to her healing and Jesus says to her, “Daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace.” He changes her life. Now she can have normal associations with others, not always afraid about being “cursed” by God. Her healing happens very casually. There are no longer prayers and elaborate gestures. She believes, touches him and is healed. It is enough sometimes just to be in the presence of God. Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains.

Filed under: Prayer | Leave a comment »

3. Forbidding Divorce & Adultery

Posted on July 6, 2014 by Father Joe

The Third Scurrilous Mystery

When it came to marriage, Jesus raised the bar and angered many. Indeed, there are still people upset with what he had to say about marriage, divorce, remarriage, adultery and the celibate life. He tells his listeners that Moses allowed a writ of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. However, this was not the way it was supposed to be. The pattern of Genesis was one man and woman, becoming one flesh, never to be torn asunder. Multiple wives and/or marriages were thus condemned. Divorce was absolutely prohibited. Women suffered under the law of divorce, often making a woman destitute in her abandonment. This would often force these women into adulterous relationships so that they could survive. Jesus saw the great injustice in this. Promises were made to be kept. Just as Christ would keep his covenant with his bride the Church, so too were other husbands and wives called to constant fidelity. When the disciples react to his words as hard to hear, saying it might be better not to marry at all, he says that celibate love is not given to all. But he does elevate a celibacy that renounces “marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Given that Jews associated divine blessing with wife, children and wealth; he was turning their accepted understanding on its head.

Filed under: Prayer | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »