• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest
    Barbara's avatarBarbara on Ask a Priest
    Josh's avatarJosh on Mixed Signals about Homosexual…
    gjmc90249's avatargjmc90249 on Marian Titles & the Mantle…
    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest

Anti-Catholic Lies: Jesuits Started the Civil War

137349295010286

Anti-Catholic Proposition:

Lincoln: “Jesuits Started the Civil War”

Explanation – The following is a brief debate between over the Know-Nothing propaganda which asserts that the Jesuits started the Civil War and killed Lincoln. It is all foolishness for weak and prejudiced minds.  The discussion eventually digressed into the area of modern-day Nazis or racists who hate both the Jews, the state of Israel and the Catholic Church.

LOU:

Honest Abe cited the Jesuits as the instigators of the Civil War!  I wonder what other wars they might have instigated!  Here is the quote:  “This war would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and North, on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis nor any one of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promise of the Jesuits, that, under the mask of Democracy, the money and the arms of the Roman Catholics, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us” (Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, The Wickliffe Press, Protestant Truth Society, Wickliffe Avenue, 104 Hendon Lane, Finchley, London, N3., 1885, p. 388).

FATHER JOE:

Lies and the fools who believe them!  I am told by a reputable historian that the anti-Catholic press (20 years after Lincoln’s death) fabricated the quote. It does not reflect Lincoln’s respect for Catholics, although he had inherited some of the common Protestant misconceptions about Catholics in vogue at that time. It does not appear in his collected writings, which I own. Lincoln even engaged Bishop Hughes of New York to appeal to the French not to aid the South in the War Between the States.  Oddly enough, the same Know-Nothings who popularized the lie you quote were refuted by Lincoln on August 24, 1855:  “I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can anyone who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal, except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no presence of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

PETAR:

I just started studying secret societies.  The Jesuits are a military order and always have been.

FATHER JOE:

The Society is a religious order, not a military one.

PETAR:

They instigated the long series of religious wars that occurred during the Catholic Anti-Reformation, and their perpetual political terrorism is exactly what led to Pope Clement XIV issuing a Papal BULL to ban them for eternity, for the sake of the peace, at the request of the French government.

FATHER JOE:

No, they peacefully preached the Gospel in foreign lands and many of them suffered martyrdom. They were defenders of the papacy; their suppression was the frenzied response to fear and a revolutionary spirit. The old Catholic Encyclopedia states: “We look forward a generation, and we see that every one of the thrones, the pope’s not excluded, which had been active in the Suppression is overwhelmed. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy become, and indeed still are, a prey to the extravagance of the Revolutionary movement. The Suppression of the Society was due to the same causes which in further development brought about the French Revolution. These causes varied somewhat in different countries. In France, many influences combined, as we shall see, from Jansenism to Free-thought, to the then prevalent impatience with the old order of things (see France, VI, 172). Some have thought that the Suppression was primarily due to these currents of thought. Others attribute it chiefly to the absolutism of the Bourbons. For, though in France the king was averse to the Suppression, the destructive forces acquired their power because he was too indolent to exercise control, which at that time he alone possessed. Outside France it is plain that autocracy, acting through high-handed ministers, was the determining cause.”

PETAR:

I know that Adam Weishaupt was trained by the Jesuits, and I know that he was their puppet when he created the Illuminati.

FATHER JOE:

Okay, it is clear that you are either playing games or just a wacko. Weishaupt went to a Jesuit school but he became an enemy of the Church: “…he came into ever sharper collision with the loyal adherents of the Church and with those who were influential in government circles. Furthermore, his obstinate nature led him to quarrel with almost everyone with whom his intercourse was at all prolonged; he felt the need of a powerful secret organization to support him in the conflict with his adversaries and in the execution of his rationalistic schemes along ecclesiastical and political lines. At first (1774), he aimed at an arrangement with the Freemasons. Closer inquiry, however, destroyed his high estimate of this organization, and he resolved to found a new society which, surrounded with the greatest possible secrecy, would enable him most effectually to realize his aims and could at all times be precisely adapted to the needs of the age and local conditions.”

PETAR:

I know that the Illuminati created the French Revolution, and I know that Napoleon was their puppet.

FATHER JOE:

The culprits were revolutionary ideas and poverty.

PETAR:

Napoleon attacked the Papal States and took them hostage, and this is what forced Pope Pious VII to restore the Jesuits, despite the Papal BULL of his predecessor.

FATHER JOE:

The Jesuits were restored when people came to their senses. Passivity to the Church’s real enemies permitted the suppression.

PETAR:

The Jesuits teamed up with the Zionists when Rothschild became the official bank of the Catholic Church, and the Knights of Malta are the military wing of this “New World Order” movement.

FATHER JOE:

Oh my goodness, are you really a NAZI? Now the conspiracy nuts have found my blog!

PETAR:

Skull And Bones runs America, and guess who they work for as well?

FATHER JOE:

A college secret society condemned by the Church rules America? Pleeease!

PETAR:

Even Masonic Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi Islam stooges are ultimately under the mind control of your “Black Pope.”

FATHER JOE:

Mind Control? Yes, and we all take our orders from the Great Spider from the Andromeda galaxy!

PETAR:

The New World Order funded the Bolsheviks, they funded Hitler, and they created the Holocaust in order to institute Israel.

FATHER JOE:

Really, are you serious?  I did not know they gave Internet access to patients in the insane asylum.

PETAR:

Don’t you realize that they are intentionally setting the stage for Armageddon?

FATHER JOE:

Actually, I have it on good authority that the End of Days is being plotted by Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck.

PETAR:

The Beast of Revelations has 10 horns, and why don’t you take a guess as to how many “assistancies” your “Society of Jesus” has divided the world into.

FATHER JOE:

Actually the beast only has 9 horns now, as he broke one off using it to as a can opener.

PETAR:

They aren’t even Catholic; they plan on destroying all religions, and creating global Lucifarianism, just like the Roman game plan of Revelation dictates.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, they plan to establish a religion that worships Barney the singing dinosaur.

PETAR:

Please wake up and stop spewing propaganda on behalf of this genocidal force that has terrorized the earth for centuries, and is moving to kill 90% of the world’s population soon.

FATHER JOE:

Oh my goodness, I am so afraid! Thank you ever so much for telling me! NOT!

PETAR:

I am very pleasantly surprised that you had the courage to publish and respond to my comments. My guess would be that most priests would avoid such a public debate about their church at all costs, considering the atrocious nature of the allegations. I would say that the Catholic Church is well known for sweeping things under the rug for as long as possible, but you would have proved yourself to be the exception in this case. It really is wonderful that you had the courage to publish and respond to my allegations, but it would have also shown a lot more decency if you would have avoided chopping up my comments to insert your own responses within. It really damages the flow of my communication, and it also makes it a lot more difficult for me to respond to your comments in return. The fair form of debate would be if you would allow my comments to appear in full, while you would respond in kind. Please show me that the Catholic Church can be fair as well.

FATHER JOE: 

I am not the whole Catholic Church, just a priest with a Blog. The Church is accused of many things, some of it quite untrue. In any case, this is my Blog… my RULES.

PETAR: 

I don’t mind that you feel the need to ridicule my opinions, or slander me as a “NAZI,” in fact I find it amusing that a priest should behave in such a childish manner, but I do feel a terrible storm of disagreement with the points that you are attempting to make.

FATHER JOE: 

Not slander, but descriptive labels; what you talk about is peculiar and has little substance in the real world.

PETAR:

I maintain that the Jesuit order is a military one, and I offer the following counter argument: Any honest investigation will reveal that Ignatius Loyola was a complete Catholic fanatic, and he was also extremely determined to spread Catholicism throughout the whole world.

FATHER JOE: 

The mission mandate of Jesus Christ requires that we as Catholics take the Gospel and the Church to the whole world. What you call fanaticism we call Christian discipleship.

PETAR:

The Jesuit order was created with a Papal Bull entitled: “Regimini militantis ecclesiae” (To the Government of the Church Militant).

FATHER JOE: 

The term “Church Militant” is a title for the Church on earth, sometimes called the Pilgrim Church, today.  The victory is won in Christ, but the devil is spiteful and we are still battling powers and principalities.

PETAR:

Loyola was an ex-soldier, and Jesuits are governed by a “Father General.” Ignatius also referred to his original disciples as “The Company of Jesus.”

FATHER JOE: 

Yes, Ignatius was formerly a soldier who put down the sword and took up the cross. The Jesuits keep company with Jesus and with one another. They also call themselves the Society of Jesus or just the Society.

PETAR: 

Loyola’s “Spiritual Exercises” would train Jesuits to deny themselves, and to thoroughly mortify themselves, and to believe that “black is white and white is black,” if a superior Jesuit would state so.

FATHER JOE:

The Spiritual Exercises is a form of meditation or prayer, particularly used among retreatants these days, either truncated or for thirty-day retreats. You can buy copies of the devotion in regular bookstores. The citation in question, maybe a bit much today, is “What seems to me to be white, I will believe to be black if the hierarchical Church thus determines it.” There is no disavowal of reason or delusion about reality here; rather, it is a form of hyperbole about trusting the Church and our religious superiors. The Church arbitrates and defines divine truths from revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Holy Spirit protects the Church and her teaching office. The posture of a disciple is humility and unswaying obedience.

PETAR:

This allowed Loyola to build a strict hierarchy within the Jesuit order, which he then used as a military intelligence apparatus within the Catholic Church.

FATHER JOE: 

Catholicism and most of her Orders are hierarchical in structure. This is not unique to Jesuits. Missionaries were not spies, but sometimes as in England, they had to move about secretly given that a death sentence was placed upon the heads of Roman Catholic priests.  Similarly, the penal laws in Maryland forced clergy into roles as landowners and to travel as tinkers during the colonial period.

PETAR:

The Jesuits would build many schools, and also train the children of Catholic nobility.

FATHER JOE:

Christian education is a hallmark of the Jesuit life. They have done much to advance learning.  English Catholic schools and seminaries were established in France when the British crown outlawed the Church.

PETAR: 

The Jesuits became popular court confessors, and they used this position in manipulating Catholic rulers to instigate the long series of brutal religious wars that occurred during the Catholic Anti-Reformation.

FATHER JOE: 

The Jesuits were the chief defenders of the papacy and were very successful in combating the Protestant rebellion. The wars or violence between rival Catholic and Protestant princes were instigated for many reasons, and not just because of religious differences.

PETAR:

It is undeniable that the Catholic Church was at this time heavily involved in Empire building, and the renewed Office of the Inquisition showed exactly what kind of disposition the Church had towards Protestants.

FATHER JOE:

The Church followed the various political states in their acts of discovery and exploration. The Inquisition was often operated directly by the states themselves, with churchmen employed to enforce uniformity in faith. Extremes are often exaggerated by anti-Catholic critics. Remember, the Church was also coming out of a period where Europe had been invaded by Islamic authority and power. Missionaries sought to convert the new peoples and pilgrims sought religious freedom in new lands. The negative spin you place upon this is very much in error.

PETAR: 

The Council of Trent would also represent how the Church felt when they labeled each value of the Reformation as “accursed” and “anathema.”

FATHER JOE: 

The reformation was not an expression of pure Christianity or godliness. Indeed, it would set the stage for a further break from all Christianity, as with the bloody French Revolution. The Catholic Counter-revolution accomplished many of the reforms wanted by those who became Protestants. Trent was one of our greatest Councils. The anathema statements were a way of speaking, by which truths were affirmed and heresies condemned. There is nothing wrong about using such a formula.

PETAR: 

What resulted with the Jesuits should come as no surprise then.

FATHER JOE:

The Jesuit martyrs in Asia, England and in North America would be heralded as heroes of faith. Schools were started that later became some of the world’s greatest universities and places of learning. Certain Know-Nothings would grow to hate the Jesuits because they were so successful at apologetics. They slandered with falsified charges that you are promoting as your research. The Jesuits preserved the Church and helped her to grow.

PETAR: 

And though you may deny this interpretation of history, you cannot deny the fact Pope Pious XIV himself stated that the Jesuits were the cause of perpetual conflict, and that they needed to be suppressed eternally for the sake of the peace, when he issued his Papal Bull of suppression.

FATHER JOE: 

The Jesuits were suppressed (1750-1773) by Pope Clement XIV (there is no Pius XIV) because of hysteria and a lack of good sense on the part of others. The Pope was pressured to do it; however, it would later be lifted: Never had faithful sons of the Church been treated so shamelessly. The reasons were political, monarchs were afraid for the kingdoms. Jesuits were theologically sound. France and Portugal were fighting over territory. They were seeking for some fall-guy to take the blame for their troubles. The Jesuits were highly successful in drawing people back to the Church. This could affect the various alliances. However, their suppression made matters worse, the secular voices of the Enlightenment could advance unencumbered.

PETAR:

It is also a fact that he then lived his last days in mortal fear of assassination by the Jesuits, and it is also a fact that he was poisoned shortly thereafter and died a prolonged tortuous death.

FATHER JOE: 

You even got the name of the pope wrong. Your comments are riddled with inaccuracies and lies. The suppression of the Jesuits was by Pope Clement XIV in July 1773, not Pope Pius XIV. “His work was hardly accomplished, before Clement XIV, whose usual constitution was quite vigorous, fell into a languishing sickness, generally attributed to poison. No conclusive evidence of poisoning was ever produced. The claims that the Pope was poisoned were denied by those closest to him, and as the Annual Register for 1774 stated, he was over 70 and had been in ill health for some time.”

PETAR:

You may also claim that the Illuminati had nothing to do with the French Revolution, and everything that happened towards the direct benefit of the Jesuits because of it, but if one examines the history of the Illuminati before its suppression, then one will also discover that the French Revolution was nothing but an extension of this organization.

FATHER JOE: 

Ah, you do know that the Church was on the losing side of the French Revolution? Countless priests were murdered and churches destroyed. If there are Illuminati; they are no friends of Catholics or the Jesuits.

PETAR: 

So why should one assume that Adam Weishaupt was the true enemy of the Jesuits, when he even modeled the Illuminati after the Jesuit structure?

FATHER JOE: 

Sometimes the enemies of the Church will steal elements from the Church to suit themselves. Hitler was enamored by the structure of the Jesuits too, but he deplored their faith and defense of the papacy. You fail to make important distinctions between accidentals and the matters of substance. Adam Weishaupt was educated at a Jesuit school but was a married layman, not a Jesuit priest.  May our Lord Jesus open your eyes to the truth and help you to turn away from anti-Catholic fantasies and calumny.

PETAR:

It really is unfortunate that a representative of the Catholic Church insists on using what I would characterize as an underhanded debate tactic, by persistently inserting his own comments in the midst of mine, as opposed to just formulating his own separate responses, in what would be the civil manner in exchanging ideas. It really makes correspondence very difficult, but I suppose that is the whole point of this tactic.

FATHER JOE:

You received more courtesy than you deserved as an anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic bigot leeching off of the Know-Nothing propaganda of a century ago.

PETAR:

The Catholic Church spent a lot of time and energy avoiding all of its culpability in rampant child molestation within the Church, and I guess that this is just another example of the same kind of thing.

FATHER JOE:

You are just trying to hit back in a soft spot because your lies revealed your terrible ignorance and prejudice masquerading as enlightenment.

PETAR:

I have many, many, thoughts that I would like to discuss with you about your responses, but I am not going to spend the energy that I would have to spend, in order to deal with the manner in which you avoid civil discussion.

FATHER JOE:

I think you have already exhausted the few thoughts you could spare. I allowed your comments on my Blog for comedic value, not for any serious debate. Everyone had a good laugh, but now it is time to say goodbye to such foolishness. Not one of your points was left standing.

PETAR:

I would just like to say that you are correct that I made a mistake and named “Pious XIV” instead of “Clement XIV,” but that does not change the general truth of what I am saying.

FATHER JOE:

There is no truth in your charges to change. You cannot get basic facts (large or small) right. You do not even know the names of the figures about which you speak. Why engage in you conspiracy theories if you are so much in the dark? Are you mentally ill in that you need to enhance your importance by throwing mud at the Catholic Church?

PETAR:

You may claim that these were “know nothings” who claimed that Clement was poisoned by Jesuits, and claimed that Jesuits were a perpetual threat to the peace, but I maintain that both Clement himself, and also many other officials with the Catholic Church at the time, were 100% correct on their characterization of Jesuit tyranny.

FATHER JOE:

The Know Nothings were a political entity that hated and ridiculed the Church, making up all kinds of sensational stories. They no longer exist although anti-Catholicism remains the one tolerated bigotry in the U.S. You quoted no papal statements about “Jesuit tyranny” because the cause for suppression was really a political appeasement that backfired. Revolutions still came and the Holy Father’s strongest defenders had been disbanded. Later the decision was rectified and the Jesuits were restored.

PETAR:

I urge any individual interested to investigate the obvious connections between the Jesuit order, Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati, The French Revolution, the restoration of the Jesuits, the rise of the Illuminati Zionist Rothschild, Rothschild fusing with the Catholic Church, Rothschild associates creating the Bolsheviks, Rothschild associates propping up Hitler, Hitler modeling the SS after the Jesuit order, Illuminati controlled British Empire propping up radical Wahhabi Islam, Vatican Knights of Malta creating the CIA with NAZI war criminals, and Illuminati Skull and Bonesman engineering 911 while the Vatican maintains ever closer ties to this 4th NAZI Reich.

FATHER JOE:

[I can’t stop laughing.]  Just when I thought there was no more humor to derive from you; you entertain us with a long ludicrous tirade. No defense is needed. Anyone who would believe these slurs should be locked up in a padded room.

PETAR:

There really is a never ending amount of issues to discuss, but unfortunately you make it impossible to do so in a completely civil manner. Nonetheless, thank you for allowing me some opportunity to express my ideas.

FATHER JOE:

Oh yes, so many other issues… Hey we have RCIA classes coming up in the fall… want to join the Church’s spy agency? (Still laughing!)

ATRUECHRISTIAN:

After stumbling upon this page, and reading through here, I am appalled.  What church are you with Father Joe?  Totally ridiculous, I am ashamed to be associated with people like you.  In my church if a priest called someone a NAZI they would be fired immediately.  I bet you wouldn’t talk like that to his face.

FATHER JOE:

Did you miss something in the conversation?  This is a conspiracy fanatic. You do know that there are still self-professed Nazis, right? I am talking the whole show…. swastikas, white supremacist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denier, etc.  He does not deny the label.  It did not pass my notice that you attacked me but said nothing about his latest comments?

PETAR:

The very last thing that I would like to point out to you is that many Orthodox Jews also agree that Zionists helped create the Holocaust in order to create Israel.

Here is what they have to say on the topic:  [link deleted].

I’m curious if you would arbitrarily accuse them of being “anti-Semitic” or “Nazi’s” as well!

FATHER JOE:

I do not link to such offensive sites. Just as there are traitors to Catholicism, I can only pity those who are ashamed of their Jewishness. They should be proud because revelation comes from the Jews. Within the context of salvation history, the Jews are truly God’s People of the promise. The more you try to defend yourself, the more convinced I become about who and what you are.

LADY GODLESS:

Father Joe said: “Just as there are traitors to Catholicism, I can only pity those who are ashamed of their Jewishness. They should be proud because revelation comes from the Jews. Within the context of salvation history, the Jews are truly God’s People of the promise.”

I don’t know what site Petar linked to, but here goes…

As I understand it, the reason that some Haredim give for rejecting the current state of Israel is that God hasn’t sanctioned its existence, and therefore neither can they. Israel was supposed to be refounded and Diaspora regathered at the coming of the Messiah and the beginning of the Messianic Age — i.e., not yet.

In other words, it’s an obey-God’s-law-no-matter-what thing, not a self-hate thing.

Also, ultra-Orthodox aren’t the only people who accuse some Zionists of collaboration. The writer Lenni Brenner, who is secular, has written extensively on this topic. It’s a touchy subject, but still not solely the province of wackos.

In fact, Brenner is how I came to hear about this stuff. He’s written for Counterpunch and other Left publications.

FATHER JOE:

I am very strong on Palestinian rights and weak on Zionist nationalism. But this critic would take things even further… he is no friend of Catholics or Jews. Madalen, you really want no part of this person’s agenda.

THE BARON:

What does it matter if Petar and I are Nazis? It doesn’t mean we totally agree with Hitler. Anyway, we have as much right to speak our mind as anyone else.

It has been over half a century since WWII. It is time to reclaim a good idea that went a little haywire.

It is proven by test scores that certain races are intellectually superior. The white races have led the way for civilization and others have clung like parasites. Some lesser races might make better basketball players and sanitation workers. As for the Jews, their money runs the planet. Zionism plagues us in Palestine and in their other residence of choice, New York.

How did Father Joe find out about us? That is what I want to know! I have no doubt those Jesuit assassins are behind this. They were behind the murder of Lincoln and many more contemporary catastrophes. It is time to unite against the tyranny of the black pope and all popes.

Terrorism today is not the work of ignorant Muslims. The papists exploit the mongrel races to their bidding.

FATHER JOE:

Maybe I should explain to people that I sometimes make statements after deleting and editing posts? I suppose the end result is that I come off sounding harsher and more judgmental than I actually am. I have left this post alone to prove a point. Usually comments like this are quickly deleted.

TRIBUTE 13:

Remarks are edited…

Hi, I’m a first time poster. I’m not big on conspiracy theory at all. I don’t believe that 9/11 was staged. I don’t think that crop circles are made by aliens.

However, conspiracy theories aside, it’s not a “theory” that Hitler and the Third Reich practiced Pagan and Wiccan rituals and attempted to call upon evil spirits to ensure their victories. They were the real nuts. This subject has been explored and proven. I really wouldn’t be surprised if they used organizations like the Jesuits or whatever remnants of other societies for him to accomplish his goal.

God gave you this divine privilege to help people, not ridicule them. If this man is mentally ill, as you seem to believe, does he not deserve the same treatment as regular human beings? He is just a man trying to converse and ask questions.  Bless you.

FATHER JOE:

Dear Mike, if I wronged this man, then I am sorry. But I am privy to information that I have not shared with you. There may be a degree of mental illness, but there might also be a case of real evil and sometimes evil requires a name. You are only 16 years old and I have been around a lot longer than you have. I intended no slur based upon heated emotions but a label that best described a certain mentality; indeed, a name that some twisted souls claim for themselves, even today. Maybe the world from the perspective of North Carolina looks like a nicer place than it actually is? And yet, I know you have had more than your share of troubles. His lies and baiting against Catholics, Jews and others exemplifies terrible prejudices which can result in people getting hurt. I have little patience for such things. While I do not hold with bias against our good Jesuits, you write well and I would urge you to keep up with your learning. Continue to work with computers, play your guitar, and try to find faith and hope despite difficult living arrangements and so many challenges. I will keep you in my prayers.

PETAR:

Zionists helped create the Holocaust, and you claim that it is “offensive”, merely because it proves how wrong you are.

You are nothing but a Papal propagandist, and I fully believe that if it was possible to criminally investigate Rome, then most of your entire gang would be in prison.

If there is one thing that is more pathetic than a person who supports evil, it is person who does so while feigning sanctity. Shame on you, you are an extremely poor excuse for a human being.

FATHER JOE:

You are entitled to your opinion, but thankfully God is my judge… not you.

XIMENES:

I’m not here to take a side on any of the issues. However, I do want to inform you where this Petar fellow gets his information. He more-than-likely bases all his statements and arguments off of stuff that he’s read from Eric Phelps’ “Vatican Assassins” or a site that supports it. I’ve heard some of that exact material from some of those aforementioned sources, and believe me, that Phelps guy really did cook up a complicated Jesuit/Masonic/Illuminist/Islamic/Zionist/Nazi conspiracy theory. I haven’t read it, as I’m a jobless sixteen-year-old and I don’t have money to get the third edition (the “most accurate”). Plus, it would be a pain reading the second edition online… but if you want to understand where this Petar guy’s coming from, I suggest you look into it.

It’s a long book, I’ve heard, but it will either enlighten you for/against what is being or will simply give you a laugh of sorts. And neither of those can be so bad.

I don’t think Petar’s mentally ill. He’s just quoting stuff that he read without telling where it came from. And he’s throwing stuff out there too quickly to make himself sound credible.

RAOUL THE MAGNIFICENT:

I am your judge, Joe. Be no more any papist.  Lucifer is not God, but is the rebel. God punishes losifer.

FATHER JOE:

I will pray that God brings healing to your confused mind.

REBE 4 LIFE:

Pff if your a Nazi that means your a conformist meaning you have connections to the Jesuits too ;). Hitler Kissed the papal [deleted] and there is even pictures of him hanging out with some of them. I find it sad when people know the truth and yet they join retarded groups like Nazis knowing that Jesuits having deep connections with them. Remember the phrase divide and conquer? :l That’s how the system works by dividing us all and making us all fight each other….when the time comes of the mass awakening I’ll be sure to see you guys there when you’re fully awake 🙂

FATHER JOE:

Omar, people like you remind us all, that not only are some asleep, but there are others who seem hopelessly delusional. The Church condemned Nazism and other forms of atheistic and/or occult totalitarianism.

ME:

I saw the quote attributed to Lincoln from the Know Nothings on another site, and searched for it to confirm or deny its creditability, and your site came up. Thank you for the lucid explanation.

I was raised in an Anglican church, and therefore understand some of what it means to be Catholic. I am by no means an expert. Over the years my faith has grown. As a religious protestant I have never settled on a denomination, but instead have actively participated in churches with pastors who speak the simple truth, and Christians who are devoted to God.

I have met more than my share of those who claim to be Christians, but yet espouse doctrines of hate towards the Catholic Church. As a Christian, I intend to draw no Catholic – Christian with the use of the word Christian, I see myself as a defender of truth. Thus in these occasions I take the person aside and expose them to their ignorance. The person, most often, goes away thinking seriously about what I said.

I too find it sad that the Jesuits are commonly defamed by these people, as there is so much good that this order has accomplished.

Though I disagree in concept with the Papacy, that one man should hold such authority, the Catholic Church has resisted the temptation to cave into political pressures then the reformed churches (e.g. Nazism). This, I will admit, is most likely due to the power of the Papacy. A strong leader if motivated by godly ambition does a great deal to stem the tide of social pressure.

Jesús Luis de Jesus Miranda, Anti-Christ or Demented?

137312907669895

This discussion was posted back in 2008.  The word was out that the followers of Miranda were planning to disrupt the Masses and visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States.  They did not even make a blip on the news radar.  Back in 2012, Miranda predicted that his followers would be transformed with the ability to walk through walls and to go through fire unscathed.  The day came and went with no change.  Other cults were predicting the end of the world and the final judgment.  But we are still here.  While he claims to be Jesus (qualified as “the man”), in 2007, he also claimed to be the Antichrist.  He defines this in terms of a demarcation between the Jesus of Scripture and his authority in this new manifestation.  His followers mark their bodies with a 666 tattoo.  It is all very peculiar. 

FATHER JOE:

He says the lie begins in Rome, but he attacks all religions.  It is almost unbelievable to me that people would worship this man and mark themselves with the sign of the beast.  Their tactics are aggression and screaming.  He is now setting his eyes on the growing Hispanic population in the U.S.   He denies the name “Jesus of Nazareth” and yet it is this is the saving name.  He denies great signs and wonders, as well as miracles:  such would cater to a strange occult version of atheism and impugn the efficacy of the sacraments.  He claims to be the fulfillment of all prophecies, making him the final term of all human history; this usurps the true Lord of his place as the eternal Word through whom all things came to be and by whom all will be consummated and judged.  He denies exorcism by asserting that the devil was destroyed and demons do not exist; such a ploy would allow the devils to remain active in hiding with no saving name of Jesus to cast them out.  Arguing that there is no sin, his teachings are absolutely sinister.  This collapse of any notion of sin, leaving souls powerless and in bondage would make for a brilliant demonic battle plan.  He redefines the number of the beast, 666, as the number for himself, a false Christ, and condemns traditional Christians as apostates.  He contends that the number 666 means wisdom and prosperity.  He associates it with worldly treasure.  There is certainly nothing in his teachings about building up treasure for us in the kingdom to come.

Followers mark themselves with 666 / SSS:

The self-proclaimed Son of God:

The cult is spreading around the United States:

ALENA:

¡Jose Luis de Jesús Miranda es dios!  Los sacerdotes son rapists.  ¡El papa es un mentiroso!  Usted no tiene ninguna derecha de hablar contra él.  Protestaremos a papa y proclamaremos la verdad.  ¡No hay diablo!  ¡No hay pecado!  Jesús mató al diablo y ha vencido pecado.  Hay infierno no a pagar.  Podemos tener placer y hacer lo que deseamos.  Predestined a la vida eterna.  El resto de las religiones deben ser destruidas.  ¡Quémese sus catechisms!  ¡Siga a Jesús el hombre!

FATHER JOE:

You are very mistaken. He is not God. The devil is defeated but still spiteful. Priests are good and bad, but mostly good. They bring us God’s mercy and the Eucharist. The commandments are still in force. How we live out our discipleship matters. We should avoid sin and do what is right. There is a hell for those who are God’s enemies.  You should live in peace with others, despite differences.  The Pope is Christ’s vicar, but unlike your Mister Miranda, he does not claim to be God.  How can people be so foolish to join the cults? Here it is [the modern world] and people are worshipping a man like the Romans did the emperor in the time of Christ.  Your religious leader is not Jesus.  You have all been fooled.

PADRE STEVE:

Wow that man needs a lot of prayers… and so do all those who follow him. So many false saviors… very sad! You do a great job with the blog; keep up the good work! God bless!

MISTER 666:

Well, unlike you, MY GOD HAS BLESSED ME WITH EVERY BLESSING (Ephesians 1:3), and also TOOK sin away at the cross (Hebrews 9:26) and is back now with NO RELATION TO SIN (Hebrews 9:28)… He came, to you, LIKE A THEIF IN THE NIGHT because He´s back and you, like Pharisees, don´t see it (or maybe don´t want for it to be seen… since He´s uncovering all the hidden intentions of your heart!).

IT´S A FACT… Not subject to discussion: JOSE LUIS DE JESUS MIRANDA IS THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST!!!! And, no matter whether you like it or not, WILL destroy your religious system with the SPIRIT OF HIS MOUTH aka with His preaching!!! (2 Thessalonians 2:8) is the gospel of Paul now… “too dangerous” for you?  Well… to bad!

FATHER JOE:

You call yourself by the number of the beast, 666? You are the one who is judging good priests with a false verdict. You are the hypocritical Pharisee. Now I see that you are a follower of the cult leader Jesús Miranda? Well, that explains it. He and all his disciples have made the sign of the beast their own. You have been very much deceived. Your soul is in great peril.

CORINNE:

Anyone who feels they have to submit to anyone outside of themselves to gain access to God is fooling themselves unknowingly and standing on shaky ground.

God lives within the heart of man. They will not find God by looking for him in the hearts of others, nor will they find God by looking for him in religions. The heart is the True Church, there is no other.

The only way people are going to realize their mistakes however are by first making them….

Why others feel they have to seek their own divinity in God outside of themselves through others I will never be able to grasp, but they are being taken advantage of unknowingly and will soon find this out on their own. They will soon learn that this too is yet another detour leading them away from God. God talks with all his children, not just some….

FATHER JOE:

The notion that divinity can only be found within the individual person is a heretical teaching. We possess the divine spark but such does not exhaust the reality of God. Further, while there are false messiahs, Catholicism has no problem with mediation: in terms of a teaching authority and in worship. None of us come to God alone. As for the Church, the Catholic Church is the community of faith and the great sacrament of salvation established by Christ.

CORINNE:

Also, anytime someone looks to someone over and above God and worships them, it is a cult and its idolatry.

TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC:

As far as this man, God have mercy on his souls and convert him from his evil ways because he is just paving a path directly to Hell for millions of people. How can you be so blind? I don’t get it.

Pius XII claimed that “the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin.” And he is correct as of yet.

CORINNE:

I see the comments here are being taken out of context so I will be moving on and will comment no further. Regarding individual divinity, you’ve twisted my words. We are each a unique individual in God and divine.  Take care.

UNKNOWN:

Hey poor idiots— this guy is merely a joke.  He gives a disgrace to the name of the Anti-Christ.  The Anti-Christ is someone who is powerful and a man full of wisdom.  This guy is a filthy scum.  It is nice knowing he will burn in hell.

FATHER JOE:

If the title anti-Christ belongs to men other than Nero, then it is a label for any who oppose Christ. If it should also belong to a singular person at the end of human history, then I suspect that…

  • He, himself, will emerge from a contradictory religious background where selective toleration is preached, applauding one’s own but castigating others and deriding the noble values of our founding fathers;
  • He will be brilliant and applauded as an orator able to excite and inspire the masses to accept his mission of change;
  • He will be a person who has forfeited saving grace, redefining sin, not as a violation of God’s will but of one’s own principles;
  • He will seemingly come out of nowhere;
  • His rise to power will happen as if overnight;
  • His fame will far surpass any genuine acts of heroism or virtue;
  • He will not so much have supporters as worshippers who will chant his name;
  • Weak people generally regarded as nominally moral will support him even though he will espouse a narcissistic faith and will be explicitly tagged with a 100% pro-abortion and pro-gay rating;
  • He will be hailed as an icon for a people who were oppressed and will exert a mesmerizing power over the minds and judgments of others;
  • He will be hailed directly by infidels as the Messiah and indirectly so by fallen-away Christians;
  • He will come at a time of national unrest and global financial crisis;
  • He will come at a time when the children of Israel are militarily engaged with those around them and the blood of many innocent people will be spilt;
  • The whole world will rejoice at his coming and readily accept his authority over them;
  • He will suffer a grave wound from which he will miraculously recover, albeit through demonic power;
  • And then, things really get bad!

PEDRO:

If the people of this con-man actually knew the Bible, they would not be so easily brainwashed.

1. For one, in the Bible it states that the numbers 666 will be the mark IN their head or IN their right forehand not the arm. So why does Jose have it on his arm and not encouraging his followers to do what it says in the Bible… maybe because he doesn’t know the Bible?  (Revelation 13:16)

2. The Bible also says that the anti-Christ will have a blow to the head. So where is the blow to the head that this man has— nowhere?  (Revelation 13:3)

3. The anti-Christ is able to perform miracles. What ones has Jose done— none?  (Revelation 13:13-14)

4. And finally, what happens if this con-man dies, what will his followers think?

In the Bible, Jesus states not to follow those who claim to be Christ and that he has said it ahead of time to know not to be deceived (Luke 21:8). Jose first claimed to be Jesus, and now the anti-Christ. Well, this guy is clearly mental. How sad for those who are brainwashed by him. It reminds me of a multi-level marketing company. All I can do is pray for his salvation and to repent before the King comes back.

BOB:

All this talk about Anti-Christ! Doesn’t anybody care about Uncle Apocalypse?

JOLENE:

This man is very dangerous and needs to be stopped! How pathetic that he thinks he’s Jesus Christ? What he needs is to be hospitalized in a mental institution! He could possibly be the Anti-Christ! Being Hispanic, I am very disappointed in the thousands of Hispanic Communities that have chosen to listen to his CR-P! Stop being so ignorant and weak, because that is what you are doing… being WEAK and IGNORANT! Every Christian out there needs to start praying very hard to God and asking him to rid of this insane man! No sin? C’mon now? I cannot be too sure of it… but I am almost positive that this man’s mother did not raise him like this! I am sure she is very, very, disappointed! He has brainwashed thousands of people and has ruined families, marriages, and even spoken bad about our Pope? Anybody that has to say follow me because I’m Jesus is Crazy, Insane, and Ignorant.  The people who follow him are just as ignorant as he is!

DALIA:

I REALY WISH THAT THIS GUY CAN PROVE TO ME ABOUT EVERYTHING HE SAYS AND I REALY HOPE THAT HE AND HIS READERS READ THIS AND I HOPE THAT ONE DAY I CAN MEET THIS MAN AND TELL HIM ABOUT THE REAL JESUS CHRIST AND PROVE TO HIM THAT WHAT HE SAID IS WRONG AND TELL HIM ABOUT THE REAL GOD AND THE REAL TURTH AND ABOUT HIS LOVE AND WHO HE REALLY IS.

THIS IS REALY SAD CUZ ITS PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT MAKES US REAL CHRISTAINS LOOK LIKE A JOKE!

I JUST HOPE THAT HE CAN BE STOPPED BUT NO ONE CAN.  ONLY GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT AND ONE DAY WILL REVEAL EVEYTHING HE THINKS HE’S HIDING AND EVERY LIE HE’S BEEN SAYING TO PEOPLE.

I JUST HOPE HE FINDS THAT REAL GOD AND REPENTS FOR EVEYTHING HE’S BEEN SAYING AND DOING CUZ WHEN HE GETS JUDGED BY THE REAL GOD IN HEAVEN HE WILL GO STRAIT TO HELL AND BE BURNED FOR ETERNATY… AND THE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOWED HIM AND KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING IS WRONG!

I WILL PRAY FOR U GUYS AND I TELL U THERE IS NO ONE OUT THERE OR GREATER AND MORE POWERFUL THEN THE GOD IN HEAVEN.   THANK U AND GOD BLESS U.

DAN:

I suspect that the guy attracts followers because they want an excuse for continuing in their sins. I doubt if he will attract too much attention & followers.

YASMIN:

To start with, if God would come to earth none of us would be here. And I believe his followers are so blind because they don’t read or understand the bible, this man is putting the bible in his own words and the people that don’t read or understand falls in his lies. If they only knew that all this that’s happening is written in the true word of God! And what’s sad about it is that all of them would be joining him in hell because of their ignorance. This man is just living off of people’s money, if he was the true God he would not need people to offer him cars, companies and their money, because God is the owner of all there is on earth because he made it and he also has the power to rule it whenever he feels like it.

LEEROY:

I’m a shamed to be a human being, knowing that I live in a time that people still believe in idiots like this guy. If you belong to this cult you are the dumbest of the dumb, the weakest of the weak minded and you are slowing down the intellectual evolution of the world. I hope the end is soon so all of these morons can be killed. Maybe the next race will get it right and abolish religion all together. No one represents God, not the pope, or any preacher and especially not this sick man.

FATHER JOE:

Sounds like there is plenty of sickness to go around. You have a very strange hope, indeed. Apart from the rejection of faith, in your anger is there not a terminal hatred of humanity itself? Further, if the race of man should run its course on this planet, why should we think that the intelligent termites (if evolution should dictate) that follow us will fare any better?

DON:

Besides, the number is 616, not 666. It is the number for Nero, and original scrolls have been found at Oxyrinchus showing the number as 6 1 6.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, the number is debated. Certain manuscripts read 616 (3rd century) in reference to the Book of Revelation. It is possible that this is original although most texts give 666. I believe the Latin Vulgate, which is the official Bible of the Catholic Church, gives 666. Some researchers think that the numerology differs because 666 is a code for the Emperor Nero while 616 points to Caligula. Both were certainly anti-Christs in their own right.

JORDYS:

I totally agree with what you guys are saying. This is man is insane, and he uses reverse psychology, and plays around with the Bible’s words to mess with people’s minds. Unfortunately, some people are actually fooled by his clear tricks. However, there must be some action taken soon. This issue will continue to increase, and people will continue following him, leading to the Apocalypse, thus, Armageddon. This man is insane, and it is almost as if he would do exactly anything and everything possible to get what he wants.

BILL:

I would give more credibility to someone who displayed a fraction of the humility set by the example of someone ….say ….like St. Francis. Maybe if we let God deal with this man… he will go away?

MOO:

“The Pope is Christ’s vicar, but unlike your Mister Miranda, he does not claim to be God.”  The Catholic Church is claiming that the Pope is unmistaken though, isn’t it?

BRITTANY:

Let us remember the tragedy at Jones Town. 30 years later those images still haunt me. Those people then and these people now are victims. These people are vulnerable and brainwashed; it is only a matter of time before something really bad happens. It is already evident that these people will do anything for their “God” Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda. Let us not forget the horrendous power of an organized cult.

JOSE ARTURO:

Alena….la que escribió el 1er mensaje en este foro.  Maldita loca…. Tu si que esta pérdida. Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, es un loco con inteligencia que se esta aprovechando de la situación, ya que en la política no se puede por que es bastante cerrada, pero el tipo es un loco y se aprovecha de las mentes débiles como la de Alena. Que pendejada esta, un tipo que te dice a ti que no hay pecado, que te drogues y hagas orgías con tu tía y abuela. Que pendejada. Todavía hay Indios en America.

FATHER JOE:

Certainly she is deceived about Miranda. He is as you say, a smart fellow who is deliberately taking advantage of others, particularly the gullible. As to the sexual immorality, I do not know much about this element; what troubles me is that Catholics could be so easily led astray.

ALEX RIVERA:

The “Holy Spirit” which we all know is basically the presence of “God” himself which is everywhere at the same time 2 or 3 people congregate in his name to worship “Him” to better explain it; would have left the earth so would death, according to the bible people would suffer such agony and terror that they will seek death and not find it, if he were the “Jesus” or “Anti-Christ” he claims to be then according to “Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda” “God is a liar…My opinion is he has committed Blasphemy against the “Holy Spirit” in which according to the “Bible” is a sin without forgiveness. So with this being Blogged let’s let these things come to pass so that the word of “God” is fulfilled and keep this man and his followers in our prayers so that “God” may have mercy on their souls. May God bless us all, Amen!

FATHER JOE:

Father Joe: I will try to parse what you wrote. (1) The divine presence is indeed omnipresent. That is true, not simply about the Holy Spirit, but about the Triune God. (2) It is Jesus who tells us that he is present when we gather with others to pray. (3) This passage you write makes no sense: “…would have left the earth so would death, according to the bible people would suffer such agony and terror that they will seek death and not find it…” The clauses do not link up in a coherent manner. I have no idea what you are trying to say. (4) You are right that Miranda is not the Christ although he may be a minor antichrist. God is not a liar; about this your insight is also correct. Miranda’s claims are blasphemous and erroneous. (5) There has been much conjecture about the unforgivable sin. Many churchmen have regarded it as suicide. But if one condemns the works of the Holy Spirit as demonic it would logically be very difficult, if not impossible, to embrace the mercy from that same Spirit. (6) We can pray for the repentance and conversion to true faith of this man and his followers.

ALEX RIVERA:

Just wanted to add the fact that the “Anti-Christ” comes after the second coming of “Jesus” so he has the order in which they happen correctly but that’s all he has.

FATHER JOE:

Throughout history there have been many antichrists. It refers to any and all who reject and oppose Christ and his Church. The term also signifies a false Christ or counterfeit messiah. This is not to deny the possibility of a singular apocalyptic antichrist; however, many authorities suggest that this pointed to the Emperor Nero or possibly another tyrant of pagan Rome who persecuted the early Church.

ALEX RIVERA:

Pentecostal Christian church is how I congregate and I’ve seen the “Holy Spirit” in action so he must be fibbing, how do I know it’s the “Holy Spirit” and not some person looking silly jumping up & down screaming gibberish? Come to a Spanish speaking Pentecostal Christian Church and find out for yourself.

FATHER JOE:

While I have known Pentecostals in love with the Lord, it is traditionally regarded as a cult itself. As a Catholic priest I could never encourage others to join its ranks, but at least they do not worship a contemporary man as Jesus Christ. However, there is the Catholic Charismatic Renewal which expresses many of the lesser gifts without neglecting the greater gifts of the Spirit in our Christian faith and in the sacraments.

ALEX RIVERA:

No I’m not saying it’s the real religion or the best church or the only way to feel the “Holy Spirit” but it’s the only place I’ve experienced it many times so I can guarantee it. Definition for Church: The body of all Christians.  May God bless us all, Amen!

FATHER JOE:

God bless you!

MATTHEW RANGEL:

As many of you know Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is not Christ. The time for the real one draws near. This will happen in our life time. The earth is getting ready for a new beginning. In the near future, horrible things are to come. Always remember who you serve and that there is a plan of action that must happen. So whatever happens— DO NOT lose your faith. Remember, if you lose someone close to you that individual will be in a better place, so don’t get mad at God. The path will soon be set for the second coming, so you all should be ready now. Go fourth and teach the Lord’s teachings to others so that they too will be saved. Be strong with the Lord and do what he asks. In the coming years great events will soon unfold. Always do what is right; that is if it will please God, do it, if it won’t, then don’t. Never lose hope for God will ALWAYS be there.

The Marriage Crisis: A Few Personal Suggestions

How might we handle the marriage crisis in the Church?  Here are a few of my suggestions:

1.  There should be a Pre-Cana preparation program that parallels RCIA instructions.  Couples can meet weekly in their parishes with a team that will help them to appreciate the sacrament, the moral obligations, and how this union fits into their Christian discipleship (openness to human life, avoidance of pornography, etc.).

2.  Couples without children that are cohabitating should be urged to separate during the time of preparation prior to the wedding.  If there are children or this is just not practical, then they should be urged to live as brother and sister until the marriage.

3.  Couples that continue to cohabitate and/or have attempted marriage before a civil magistrate or non-Catholic minister still have the natural right to marriage; however, the scandal they have caused should not be amplified by a full-blown church-wedding.  Convalidations or ceremonies for such couples might be very small, without rehearsal, with no less than two witnesses and no more than perhaps a dozen people.  There should be no flowers, no music, no fancy dresses and no reception on parish property.  There would be the reading of Scripture, a brief homily, the exchange of vows, the bidding prayers and the closing blessings.  The service should take no more than 30 minutes.

4.  The nuptial Mass is properly reserved to Catholic couples who are faithful to each other and to the Church, honestly struggling to be chaste and participating in the pre-marital preparation.  A wedding without the Mass can be celebrated for a faithful Catholic marrying a non-Catholic who respects the spouse’s faith and has agreed to have the children raised as Catholics.  These couples would also be eligible for parish receptions.

5.  The dress for the bridal party and the bride should be feminine and beautiful, but not skimpy and erotic.  Bosoms should have ample coverage and legs should not be excessively exposed.

6.  Music for the liturgical celebration must be exclusively religious.  Popular and/or romantic songs should be saved for the reception.  There should be an air of gravity, not flippancy at the wedding.  Exaggerated walking, dancing down the aisle and props like fake noses or full costumes are best avoided.

7.  Receptions for Catholic weddings should include nothing that is profane in language, music, dance or actions.  The practice of extracting the bride’s garter should be forbidden as lewd and undermining to the woman’s dignity.  Her body belongs to her husband and is not the object for leering and jokes from male guests.

8.  It should be understood that bachelor parties and parties for the bride with the girls must be sober and pure.  Strippers and pornographic videos are no way for couples to spiritually prepare for marriage.  Like the knights of old, the night before their great journey and life together should be spent in prayer and reflection.

I know, a few of you are shaking your heads, and mumbling, “That Father Jenkins is crazy!”

The Marriage Crisis

I regularly follow the wisdom on Msgr. Charlie Pope’s blog for the Archdiocese of Washington.  Recently, he posted on the following question:  “In the wake of the Supreme Court decisions of this week, are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?”  A number of Catholic voices are arguing that we should disengage ourselves both with the word “marriage” and from allowing clergy to function as civil magistrates in witnessing them for the state.  Certainly I am sympathetic with what they hope to accomplish.  However, I am already on the record, from past discussions, as opposed to such a retreat.  Both sides can play word-games.  Towards the end, he poses a second question, “Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil ‘marriage’ licenses?”  Again, I appreciate the underlying reasoning; we want to avoid guilt by association and giving apparent approbation.  My fear is that any such move would be contrary to a well-ordered or structured society (which is a good in itself).  It would also constitute a retreat that opponents in the public forum would exploit.  It seems to me that our laity would bear the blunt of the suffering and challenge that would come from such a move.

thCAB3DHYP

I am not blind to the dire crisis we face.  It is true that marriage as an institution has been largely redefined by our society.  The movement on behalf of same-sex unions is a case in point; of course, if left unchecked it will not stop there.  Next we will see the return of polygamy.  Despite the many scandals faced by the Church, there are even depraved people pushing for pedophilia and pederasty.  There is already a bizarre effort in Australia for a man to marry his pet goat, the degradation of bestiality.  The U.S. bishops reminded us in their failed initiative that marriage is in trouble.  While I am hesitant to criticize our holy shepherds; the fact is that marriage has been in trouble for some time now and we were largely silent.  Contraception nullifies the consummation of the marital act.  Millions of abortions seek to erase through murder the fruit of marital love.  No-fault divorce allows for quick separations and remarriages.  Prenuptial Agreements insert doubt against the vows and a lack of trust from the very beginning, thus making those marriages null-and–void.  Couples fornicate and cohabitate, essentially saying that you do not have to be married to have sex.  Well, when you separate sex and marriage, you also set the stage for infidelity and adultery.  Once sex is disconnected from marriage it is very hard to reattach it with any kind of necessity.  Our society is saturated by an erotic and pornographic media that destroys courtship and sexualizes relationships.  This dilemma is so pervasive that the inner person has lost any sense of propriety or decency.  Viagra gives the old stamina to neglect their coming judgment and condoms give the young license under the illusion of protection.  Wedding dresses that once expressed modesty and femininity are increasing replaced with skimpy gowns akin to those on television dance contests.  Ours is the generation where all rights, even the right to life, are supplanted by the emerging and absolute right to have sex with anyone regardless of promises and unions.  The children are caught up in the middle of this whirlwind.  This is so much so that we even dress our little girls like the prostitutes that walk the street.

Much Ado about a Word

Msgr. Pope makes the accurate observation that the Church and society-at-large mean very different things by the word, “marriage.”  Of course, this is also the situation with many other terms as well.  While language is fluid and hard to control; it can certainly be manipulated.  Look at the word GAY.  This expression for joy or happiness has become the source for giggling when used in old songs.  It has now been exclusively usurped by the homosexual community.  Another word in peril is RELATIONSHIP.  When we hear teens or young adults use it these days, they generally mean a sexual friendship with a certain degree of exclusivity.    The word that most troubles and saddens me today is LOVE.  What precisely does it mean anymore?  We do not want to cast it off and so the dictionary definition gets longer and longer.  Look at how we use it.  “I love my car.  I love my dog.  I love my job.  I love my house.  I love donuts.  I love strippers.  I love my wife.  I love my children.  I love God.”  Then we have expressions like, “Let’s make love,” a euphemism for sex.  We give it so many meanings that the word begins to mean nothing.

What does the word MARRIAGE mean?  Is it just a civil contract to make having sex easier or more convenient?  If that is all it is, it is no wonder that couples are cohabitating without it.  Some states have argued for different types of marriage contracts, one more easily dissolved than the other.  There was even an effort to impose marriage licenses with term limits.  If after five years, if the spouses were unhappy, they could opt not to renew.  The marriages would then automatically expire.  The divorce epidemic, something which Protestant churches pamper by their failure to enforce Christ’s command in Matthew against divorce, has given us what is essentially serial or progressive polygamy, one spouse after another.  Proponents of “open” marriages suggest that couples should still be able to have sex with others outside their bond.  I know one instance where a man lives with both his wife and his mistress in the same house.  The girls share him.  Largely gone is the Catholic-Christian equation that marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman who are called to be faithful to each other until the death of one of the spouses.  Marriages are rightly directed toward the good of the spouses and the generation of new human beings, children.  Stripping marriage of its propagative element is to make marriage wholly something else.  Even infertile couples must express their union in that act which by nature is directed to the generation of new human life.  That is why something like condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil, even in marriage, yes, even among older infertile couples.  Too many couples feign the marital act and live in relationships that are not true marriages.  The large cases of annulments are cases in point.  People can share their bodies like cats and dogs but they are ignorant of the true parameters of marital love and union.  Although a natural right, they have made themselves ill-disposed to the sacrament.  Required six-month waiting periods and marriage preparation are attempts to remedy the dark situation.  However, couples frequently go through the motions and tell the moderators and clergy what they want to hear.  I recall one priest praising a couple he was working with for doing all the right things before marriage.  On the way out one evening, I overheard the prospective groom tell his girl, “What a jerk!”  Later I found out from parishioners that they had been cohabitating the whole time and only went to the priest’s Masses once-in-a-while to fool him about their religiosity.  They spent a fortune on the wedding and we never saw them again.  I heard a few years later they divorced because “they grew apart.”  When Catholics marry outside the Church, in the eyes of God they do not get married at all.  However, Catholics who marry in the Church might also start their unions with deception.  Planting lies today often leads to weeds tomorrow.

I will echo Msgr. Pope in giving the definition of MARRIAGE from the universal catechism:

[CCC 1601]  The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

What are we to do when the definition given to marriage in no way parallel’s the understanding of the Church?

Msgr. Pope proposes that we stop using the word “marriage” and substitute instead, “holy matrimony.”  He explains:

“The word ‘matrimony’ also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = ‘mother’ and ‘mony,’ a suffix indicating ‘action, state, or condition.’ Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has ‘marriage’ for its nomen.”

He readily admits that there are problems with trying to regulate language in such ways.  If I recall correctly, I was among those unconvinced and “perturbed that we were handing over our vocabulary to the libertines.”

We can play word games but our opponents are not fools.  They were not happy with the notion of “civil unions” and wanted “marriage.”  Don’t be surprised that they will also be speaking of their bonds in terms of “holy matrimony.”

Marriage is a natural right.  Opting to use another word is not going to change this fact.  Homosexuals and lesbians can feign marriage and the state might recognize it; but, in truth such unions are a violation of the natural law.  The debate or argument is best sustained by retention of the vocabulary.  We must insist that same-sex marriage is a fiction.  Surrendering the word would only grant them the false sense that they had succeeded in making their argument.

If we cannot even defend a word like “marriage,” then how can we defend all the ideas behind it?  This conflict is not just about marriage; it is a fight over the hearts and minds of people.  So-called same sex-marriage is just one weapon in the enemy’s arsenal.  The goal of our critics is to redefine the Church out of existence.  The government administration wants to become the sole arbiter of marriage; but more than this— it views Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, and Catholic hospitals as standing in its way.  Threats to close would only make them nationalize these institutions and they would argue that such is a “necessity” for “the public good.”  This is the goal of our antagonists.  If American society is to be remade then the Church must either change to insignificance or be destroyed.  This is the fight we face.

Ministers of the State or of the Church

My initial sentiments emerged as an aside to the courageous crusade of Bai Macfarlane against No-Fault Divorce.  The question arose as to whether clergy compromised themselves by acting as witnesses for the state, signing the marriage licenses and returning them to the courts.  Msgr. Pope continues to sign them, he says, out of holy obedience to the Archbishop.  Speaking for myself, I think we would forfeit too much by surrendering this privilege to the state.  I suspect that problems might escalate instead of get better.  Further, if the Church should opt out, would not our couples still have to get their civil licenses before Church weddings? He seems to think not, arguing that they should “in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.”  I recall arguing with a hippie years ago who regarded the marriage license as just a piece of paper.  In response, I cited that it came along with the Church sacrament and that it also respected the state’s right to regulate marriages as an integral building block to society.  The state is taking a wrong turn with these same sex unions but we should still take advantage of our rights as citizens.  That piece of paper says that as a member of society, I still have a voice and that marriage is an institution that must be acknowledged, regardless as to whether others are given such acknowledgment wrongly (in the past because of divorce and today also because of same-sex unions).  Opting out will undermine a structured society, its institutions, and the protections and rights we take for granted.

I have immigrants in my parish from Asia and Africa.  Their home nations do not give the privilege that our clergy enjoy in being able to witness marriages.  Some of them have only known tribal weddings.  Others have licenses from a judge or notary public.  While they should have immediately had their marriages solemnized by a priest, they put the process off.  Children were conceived.  Time went by, maybe years, and now they all need Church convalidations.  Would we reduce all marriages in the Church to convalidations?

If we attempt to marry people in Church who are not legally married; we will be facing all sorts of headaches.  We would be opening the door to rampant bigamy where people would be civilly married to one person and married in the Church to another— without the recourse to the legal fiction of divorce.  At present the state recognizes all Church unions even though the Church does not acknowledge every civil union.  The last thing we should want is to segregate the Church into her own private ghetto where there are “us” and “them.”  We have every right to a place in the public forum and should fight for it.  Our married couples have every right to the protections insured by law (tax incentives, inheriting property, healthcare and insurance, custodial issues with offspring, hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse, and sharing a name).  Marrying couples without civil licenses would once have opened our couples to prosecution for cohabitation.  Even if this is a bygone concern, there is still the prospect of scandal.  Some will view “married in the Church” but “not in the state” as NOT being married at all.  The children from such unions could be labeled as “bastards” by our critics.

The Church has a responsibility to be fully integrated into civil society as a constitutive part.  There will be conflicts but accommodations will have to be made that will not compromise our message and mission.  Maybe there is a need for different types of licenses from the state for religious weddings, distinguishing them from civil ones?  Indeed, there are different theologies between the churches.  Some view the clergy person as the one who performs the marriage.  Catholics view the spouses as the ministers of the sacrament to which the priest witnesses.  Episcopalians and others will probably even allow and celebrate same-sex unions.  We may become a minority voice in this society but we should not allow that voice to be silenced.  Taking our toys and going home angry will not fix the situation.  The retreat of the Church would be precisely what our enemies want.  I fear that it would further erode the foundations of our civilization.  Caesar’s empire might be pagan, but the Christian and the Church still have obligations to maintain a society that would protect our rights and freedoms.

I would maintain the status-quo with priests witnessing marriages for the state.  However, there may come a day when that is taken away from us.  We can cope with that when it comes.  Civil disobedience might then take many forms, some of which could be extremely bizarre.  One priest suggested that all our religious houses claim same-sex unions so as to get the marriage benefits and healthcare.  I know one case already where a married couple got divorced but still live together so as to have better retirement benefits.  I suspect that laws will be passed to force couples and the Church to behave.  How far do we want to press it?  Speaking for myself, I really hate retreating.

The Larger Challenge

It is my hope that we will have courageous shepherds and a supportive flock.  I foresee priests facing fines and jail time for hate-speech in regard to teaching and preaching against homosexuality.  After all, the Church’s language about marriage in the recent Supreme Court case was appraised as bigotry.  Hum, we might have to take priests entirely out of the marriage scenario if all our clergy are locked up.  Already, while the Church is currently protected, and we cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, organizations like the Knights of Columbus are not safeguarded.  At this writing the free-standing Knights of Columbus halls in Maryland have been notified that due to their state charters they must rent for the wedding receptions of homosexuals and lesbians.  The pressure is already on.

Our public schools are teaching that any reservation about homosexuality is discrimination.  What will our children then think of their churches?  Must we extract all our children from the public schools?  Who will pay to place them into Catholic institutions?  Homeschooling is an option for some but not for all.  Where are we going from here?  If the government and the media are more successful than the Church in forming consciences and teaching values; then what avenues are left?  The issue is far more complex than any nomenclature of marriage or whether priests are authorized as civil magistrates.  The question is how does the Church function and survive in a non-Christian society?

Catholics did not unanimously support the U.S. bishops in the Marriage Matters campaign.  Indeed, large numbers were vocal in opposition.  We hesitate to name names and are always fearful of our tax-exemption status.  But if we are going to be shunned in a matter similar to racists over the issue of homosexual acceptance; then we will no doubt forfeit such benefits in the days ahead.  I know I sound pessimistic and cynical.  But that is what I see coming.  The Church waited too long to find her teeth.  She is an old dog grown weak from inactivity and abandoned by her pups.  There are wolves coming.  They want the Church out of the way.  Look at the various initiatives of the current administration.  Starting with appointments in religious churches and schools, then forcing churches to violate their basic principles and next pressing upon us what was once an unthinkable depravity— all these are attempts to redefine the Church out of existence.  The president’s view of religion is seen through the prism of secular humanism.  Anything else is judged as extraneous and must go.

There are some who are pawns to those who hate the Church.  Others actually think that they are catalysts for positive change in the Church and society.  Look at all the Catholic politicians who oppose the U.S. bishops and who dissent on Church teaching.  The chief advocates in Maryland and in Washington are baptized Catholics.  Like Msgr. Pope, I have my opinions; and like him, in obedience we both defer to the Archbishop and the national shepherds of our Church.  We share our ideas, pray for courage and know that God will not abandon his children.

Jimmy Carter Attacks Church on Women’s Ordination

137210714256035The news is abuzz about Jimmy Carter’s TIME interview remarks with Elizabeth Dias promoting the conference, “Mobilizing Faith for Women: Engaging the Power of Religion and Belief to Advance Human Rights and Dignity” at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia.  It will be held from June 27 to June 29.  Carter and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are bringing together representatives from around the world to speak about women’s rights.  At least this is what they project; in truth they also are inviting radical feminists like Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and liberal voices to give a distorted understanding of women’s rights and to attack the religious views of others.  Indeed, while Catholicism has often been a lone voice crying out on behalf of human rights, especially about issues like poverty, repressive regimes, and the unborn; it was associated here with the most repressive Islamic movements and terrorists.

Carter focused on the Catholic rejection of priestesses; but the motivation goes far deeper.  The Church opposes so-called Choice and the lie that abortion is a woman’s right even as it strips the unborn child of all rights, starting with life.   Just picking one participant at ransom, there is Susan Thistlethwaite, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress and who writes for The Washington Post.  American Progress promotes gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered rights.  It has lobbied for same-sex marriages.  It wholeheartedly supports contraceptive and abortifacients provisions in Obama’s Healthcare plan over the religious liberty of the Catholic Church.  It is on the record as pro-abortion.  They even oppose chastity education over free condom giveaways and safe-sex education.  It is also on the side of what it calls “progressive” religion and women’s ordination.  The deck is fixed and more neutral and opposing voices are not invited.

Jimmy Carter regards the exclusion of women from the priesthood as a human rights abuse?  This makes absolutely no sense to me.  Ordination to the priesthood is not a natural right.  It is a spiritual calling and a divine gift.  It cannot be merited.  No one deserves it.  By definition it cannot be associated with any social justice agenda.  People might debate the subject and others might request it; but no one can demand it.  It is a sacrament of the Church.  The Church has every right to regulate her sacraments as she sees fit.  The Church has made great overtures in empowering women.  They minister as pastoral associates, chancellors, office managers, directors of religious education and catechists, music directors, readers, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, religious sisters, lay missionaries, principals and teachers, and the greatest vocation of all, as mothers.

Instead of dictating to the churches and other religions; Carter should have encouraged them to find new avenues for inclusion and service for women.  It is not his place to dictate “theology” which conflicts with the settled doctrine of other faith communities.  If we are going to respect religious liberties then we have to paint in broad strokes and allow them the freedom and ingenuity to find ways to heal gender inequality.  Not everyone looks at the world through the lenses of liberal Protestantism.  Catholicism has its Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.  Conservative Protestantism has its strict reliance upon a literal understanding of Scripture.  Islam is a religion of “the Book” and “the Law.”  Judaism is the religion of “the Promise.”  Unless we are going to respect each other than there can be no true dialogue.  It seems that his conference will host only those on the fringes of religious communities; not the genuine leaders who can make a difference.  Dissenters condemned by lawful authority will not bring change to their religions, only more division.  As for Catholics, maybe the issue is not that women are not allowed to be priests?  Perhaps the real issue is that many fail to appreciate the nature of the priesthood and the many ways that women already have to serve in the Church?

The priest acts at the altar as an “alter Christus” or “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ), the head of the Church.  The priest at the altar speaks Christ’s words in the first person.  He is a living icon for Christ.  While men and women share their human nature; men and women are not the same.  Our Lord had many affiliations with women.  He made the Samaritan woman at the well into a prophetess for her people.  Mary Magdalene would be at the Cross and the empty tomb.  Lazarus’ sisters, Martha and Mary took the posture of disciples.  Mary was his Mother and the Immaculate Conception.  She cooperated with the saving work of her Son like no other human being.  However, not one of these women was ordained into the priesthood of Christ’s Church.   Jesus broke all sorts of stereotypes, but not about this.  Might it be that there is something constitutive or singular and important about the male identification of his priests with him?  If so, then it would be foolhardy to attempt any change in this apostolic tradition that goes all the way back to Christ.  Baptists have no such view of their ministers and do not believe that their bread and grape juice is God come down from heaven.  Catholics believe that the sacred elements are transformed (transubstantiation) into the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ.  We participate in an unbloody or clean way at the oblation of Calvary.  Catholics are given the Risen Christ in Holy Communion.  As an educated man, I would have hoped that Carter would have known better; evidently, he is ignorant of Catholic doctrine and thus made a fool of himself in trying to dictate to the Church.

ancient-egyptian-symbols-8No woman will ever be an authentic priest.  As offensive as it might sound, their history is more related to that of priestesses in ancient pagan religions than in Christianity.  The excommunicated Catholic women who attempted ordination are not real priests.  Most of the men and all of the women in the Episcopal Church are not priests and certainly not bishops.  However, none of this means that women are demeaned or looked down upon.  Cardinal O’Boyle’s homilies at ordinations often sounded like Mother’s Day sermons.  He thanked the women for giving the Church their sons; he promised the Church would always look after their boys; and he explained that they would always be the most special women in their lives.  Priests are men but they are also sons.  They love their mothers, as well as their sisters.  They are thankful for the wonderful ladies in the parishes who breathe life into our communities and do so much of the work.  The priest is the servant of all but especially to them.  They see something of their mothers in all the women around them.  They are faithful sons.  The priesthood is no guarantee of personal holiness.  No one has to be a priest to be saved.  Indeed, the priesthood might bring a harsher judgment upon a man because the more one has been given the more one will be held accountable.  Most men will never be priests.  Women will never be priests.  But all benefit from the priesthood and it is a sacrament that touches the whole Church.  It makes possible the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of Penance.  It grants us all a share of the bread of life and the chalice of salvation.

Carter’s increasing modernist views forced him to separate from the Southern Baptist Convention.  He states in a 2000 press release that he could only associate with other Baptists “who continue to share such beliefs as separation of church and state, servanthood and not domination of pastors, local church autonomy, a free religious press and equality of women.”  While there are areas of legitimate rights, anti-Catholic remarks were placed in the mix, and Catholic teaching demonized by their association with genuine wrongs.  The issue of women’s ordination is a far cry from subjects like female castration, violence against women, human trafficking in terms of slavery and prostitution, and denying the rights of women to education and to full participation in the governing structures of society.

Am I exaggerating about the extent of this assault upon Catholic discipline and doctrine?  Look at what the former president said in the interview:

“Well, religion can be, and I think there’s a slow, very slow, move around the world to give women equal rights in the eyes of God. What has been the case for many centuries is that the great religions, the major religions, have discriminated against women in a very abusive fashion and set an example for the rest of society to treat women as secondary citizens. In a marriage or in the workplace or wherever, they are discriminated against. And I think the great religions have set the example for that, by ordaining, in effect, that women are not equal to men in the eyes of God.”

Notice that he is lumping together Christianity with other world religions as if there is no distinction.  This seems surprising given that he is a deacon in the Baptist church!  Of course, he has issues with his own denomination and left the more conservative branch of his denomination for an “anything goes” version, where his wife has also been made a deacon.  How could he sanely compare the treatment of women in the Church with the repression we see in Islam?  There are Islamic societies where women must clothe their entire bodies, even their faces, from the outside world.  Their bodies are mutilated and they are regarded as property.  Radical Islam and it has yet to be proven that this is the minority view, grants them only the most elementary education and no leadership roles.  Catholicism, on the other hand, argues for the full dignity of women, which includes “motherhood,” a bad word to some of the liberal dissenters!  Catholicism would grant them education, civil leadership, and participation in the workforce.  Catholic women serve as the chancellors of dioceses, office managers of churches, principals and teachers of parochial schools, physicians and nurses in our hospitals, and are counted among the great saints and doctors of the Church!  Indeed, the greatest of God’s creatures is “the Woman” or New Eve, the Blessed Virgin Mary!

While the priesthood is reserved to men, such is because we are restricted to the model given us by Christ and it is not subject to social reinterpretation.  The equality for which Catholicism argues is one of complementarity, not egalitarianism.  Men and women are coheirs in grace and equal in dignity.  But men and women are not the same.  Those who argue otherwise logically have no problem with homosexual and lesbian unions.  Such is the plight of those who make gender utterly insignificant.  It is a deception against nature and the God of nature.  Just as only women can be mothers; only men can be priests.  Women conceive and give birth to new life from their wombs.  Priests consecrate the real presence of Christ upon our altars and make possible new life from the womb of the Church.

Carter becomes as bad a fiend as the current administration in dictating to the Church what should be doctrine and morals.  Has there been collaboration in this?  It is in this light that the bizarre recent Supreme Court case becomes clearer.  Why would the administration want authority over the staffing of churches and seminaries?  It would insure that only the people who thought as they do would have positions of influence and teaching.  Note also President Obama’s recent words in Ireland:

“There are still wounds [in Northern Ireland] that haven’t healed and communities where tensions and mistrust hangs in the air… If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.”

No matter how you try to spin it, the fact is this comes across as an effort to shut down or maybe even to nationalize Catholic schools— and taking God out of public schools much as we have in the United States.  Brian Burch, president of the group Catholic Vote, offered this pointed correction: “Catholic schools educate children without regard for race, class, sex, origin, or even religious faith. The work of Catholic education is a response to the Gospel call to serve, not divide.”

One could argue that through Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, through our parochial school system and universities, etc., Catholics have been at the forefront of the battle for human rights.  Back when Jimmy Carter’s church was urging segregation and espousing racism, the Catholic Church was already desegregating its schools and had priests marching with Martin Luther King.  There was no greater defender of labor unions and worker’s rights as the late Msgr. Higgins.  Today, we are at the forefront of the fight against abortion and the defense of the sanctity of life, something which Carter and other humanists have betrayed.  He and his compatriots no longer have sufficient moral standing to critique the Catholic faith.

Carter has his doctorate in physics, but what does he really know of Catholic doctrine and moral teaching?  Has he read Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem on the Dignity and Vocation of Women?  Pope John Paul II, who argued infallibly that only men can be ordained as priests, wrote this:

“Therefore  the Church gives thanks for each and every woman: for mothers, for sisters, for wives; for women consecrated to God in virginity; for women dedicated to the many human beings who await the gratuitous love of another person; for women who watch over the human persons in the family, which is the fundamental sign of the human community; for women who work professionally, and who at times are burdened by a great social responsibility; for ‘perfect’ women and for ‘weak’ women – for all women as they have come forth from the heart of God in all the beauty and richness of their femininity; as they have been embraced by his eternal love; as, together with men, they are pilgrims on this earth, which is the temporal ‘homeland’ of all people and is transformed sometimes into a ‘valley of tears’; as they assume, together with men, a common responsibility for the destiny of humanity according to daily necessities and according to that definitive destiny which the human family has in God himself, in the bosom of the ineffable Trinity. / The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine ‘genius’ which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness. / The Church asks at the same time that these invaluable ‘manifestations of the Spirit’ (cf. 1 Cor 12:4ff.), which with great generosity are poured forth upon the ‘daughters’ of the eternal Jerusalem, may be attentively recognized and appreciated so that they may return for the common good of the Church and of humanity, especially in our times. Meditating on the biblical mystery of the ‘woman’, the Church prays that in this mystery all women may discover themselves and their ‘supreme vocation’.”

Women would do better to subscribe to the Holy Father’s view of women over the distorted and impoverished version promoted by our society and by the former president.

Clinton understands neither Christian anthropology and womanhood nor the sacramental nature or reality of the priesthood.  Of course, how could he understand?  As a Baptist, he rejects the identification of the ordained man with the high priesthood of Jesus Christ.  Priests are not the same as ministers.  Indeed, his version of ministry would even strip Catholic ministers of their pastoral authority and make them pawns of trustees like himself.

Carter enumerates upon his view of Catholic discrimination:

“This has been done and still is done by the Catholic Church ever since the third century, when the Catholic Church ordained that a woman cannot be a priest for instance but a man can. A woman can be a nurse or a teacher but she can’t be a priest. This is wrong, I think. As you may or may not know, the Southern Baptist Convention back now about 13 years ago in Orlando, voted that women were inferior and had to be subservient to their husbands, and ordained that a woman could not be a deacon or a pastor or a chaplain or even a teacher in a classroom in some seminaries where men are in the classroom, boys are in the classroom. So my wife and I withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention primarily because of that.”

The truth be said, the pattern was established by Christ that only men could be ordained.  The Council of Nicea would forbid the placing of hands upon the head of a woman for ordination but this was not because there was a debate in Catholic circles.  There were false Christians or Gnostics who regarded matter as evil and contended that Jesus was a spiritual being who only pretended to be human and to die on the Cross.  They had priestesses because of this basic rejection of the incarnation.  Gender is not an accidental but touches the core identity of the person.  The Church, then and now, felt compelled to follow the pattern of Christ and the apostles.  As Pope John Paul II explained, the Church does not have the authority to change this pattern.  If we were to do so anyway, and such was in contravention of the divine will, we would forfeit forever both the priesthood and the Eucharist.  In other words, the Church, herself, would come to an end.  Remember, while Protestants have ecclesial communities, theologically speaking a “church” requires an authentic priesthood and the Eucharist (Christ’s real presence and the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary).  Baptists have neither of these already.  Carter wants the Catholic Church to become a variation of liberal Protestantism!

Carter continues:

“But I now go to a more moderate church in Plains, a small church, it’s part of the Cooperative Baptist fellowship, and we have a male and a female pastor, and we have women and have men who are deacons. My wife happens to be one of the deacons.  So some of the Baptists are making progress, along with Methodists. For instance the other large church in Plains is a Methodist church, and they have a man for the last eight years and the next pastor they get will be a woman. They’ve had a woman pastor before, before the Baptists did. And of course the Episcopalians and other denominations that are Protestant do permit women or encourage women to be bishops, as you know, and pastors.”

Okay, so he bases his entirely opinion to change 2,000 years of Catholic practice and holy orders upon a handful of Protestant churches in his hometown!  As for the Episcopalians, they also allow divorced and gay clergy.  Would he argue for these concessions as well?

He concludes by speaking about the status of women under Islam, as if there is any real comparison.  Even here he contends that strict laws against women are due to “misquoting the major points of the Qur’an.”  Evidently, he now counts himself not only an expert on Catholic sacraments and administration as well as Islamic teaching and laws.  Please, this is ridiculous.  He is fearful of offending the Moslem world by saying that the Qur’an is wrong for teaching such things.

Clinton ignores Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition entirely by condemning Catholic practices.  Catholicism would allow women to serve in virtually any occupation they want except the priesthood.  Nothing is said about the powerful and saintly women who served selflessly and courageously in our religious orders.  Nevertheless, he associates such a prohibition with Islam forcing “ten year old girls” to “marry against their wishes,” “that women can be treated as slaves in a marriage,” “that a woman can’t drive an automobile,” and that “some countries don’t let women vote, like Saudi Arabia.”  He neglects to tell us that Christianity is virtually outlawed in Saudi Arabia.  The rights of women have emerged and have been protected in Christian and Catholic nations.  There is no comparison, although he forces one upon us.

It saddens me that this proposed conference is so slanted to the left.  Where are the more sober voices? He states, “But anyway, I say that the emphasis of condoning of violence on the general population, and the denigration of women as inferior, those are the two things we are going to address in this conference.”  The topic is good but I am fearful that his targeting is way off.

The topic of women’s ordination in the Catholic Church is permanently off the table.  Dissenters and busy-bodies from other denominations will just have to get used to it.  As Pope John Paul II declared:

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

As if ignorant Catholics giving a distorted witness were not bad enough, now we have a Baptist deacon and former president trying to tell the Church its business and what it should do. It is unbelievable. How many Catholic priests or deacons would argue for the reform of the Baptist denomination so that it would conform to the structure of historic Catholicism? We might invite them to become Catholics but we would not proselytize or seek control over the internal structures of their churches. Today, the executive administration of our country and dissenters are seeking just that in regard to Catholicism, the overthrow of the Church and the severing of ties to the Pope and traditional Christianity. It sickens me and is ample evidence that all the talk about tolerance and mutual understanding is a smokescreen for just the opposite. Religious liberty does not mean that we can change the Church into whatever we want. Rather, it means that churches, temples and synagogues have a right to exist on their own terms and not to have doctrine changed or imposed by either government or radical fringe groups. If liberal Catholics want birth-control, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex unions, sexual cohabitation, no-fault divorce with legalized adultery, and women priests— then they should make up their own “church” with their counterfeit Jesus, leaving the rest of us to the truth. Or they could just join the “anything goes” Episcopalians with their charade liturgies and “real absence” communion sacrament.

The Charge of Idolatry Against Catholicism

Six years ago, a person calling himself DKMENSA argued from a Catholic prelate’s candle-lighting at an interfaith conference that this was proof of what other priests do:  the lighting of candles, the burning of incense and the bowing before idols.  It started a brief discussion which is recorded here.  He liked to write in caps.

DKMENSA:

FATHER JOE, OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING IN RESPECTS TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.  AS A CATHOLIC, I REMEMBER THE PRIESTS BOWING BEFORE IMAGES OF “MARY” AND OTHERS IN WORSHIP (SERVITUDE).

FATHER JOE:

While certainly believers can kneel before a statue of a saint to offer prayer, such is not understood as strictly the posture of divine worship any more than a bow before royalty. It is a sign of respect and sometimes a posture for prayer. All prayer has as its proper object, Almighty God. However, Catholics might pray before a picture or image of a saint, asking intercession of a brother or sister or our Blessed Mother who is in heaven. We are asking them to pray FOR and WITH us. We are a family or community. Such is the basic understanding regarding the identity of the Church. We pray for one another and believe in the resurrection of the dead. We are NOT worshipping the statue or picture any more than a man worships the photo of his wife and children. However, they do bring to his mind and heart those whom he loves. It is the same in the Church regarding saints. Were you not taught this when you were a Catholic?

DKMENSA:

DURING CATHECHISM, WE WERE ALSO TAUGHT TO PRAY TO THESE SAME IMAGES. UNLESS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS CHANGED, THESE ACTS ARE ALSO IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE COMMANDMENTS.

FATHER JOE:

I dare you to find any approved catechism that says we are to pray TO the images! We venerate sacramentals but we do not pray to them. Such is not Catholicism but superstition. I suspect that you did not really know your catechism but later bought a false caricature of Catholic faith from anti-Catholic fundamentalists. You allowed them to spoon-feed you lies or a straw man Catholicism that could be easily discredited. It is one thing to oppose Catholic practice and teachings; but you should at least get it right. Anything else is bearing FALSE WITNESS against your neighbor. The last time I looked there was also a commandment about that!

DKMENSA:

Exodus 20:3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, this is Catholic teaching. Ours is a jealous God. God is one or has one divine nature. This is in the catechism!

DKMENSA:

Exodus 20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of anything] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth.

FATHER JOE:

Even the Jews knew that this commandment was not absolute. The Ark of the Covenant was adorned with angels and a seraph upon a pole was fashioned at Moses’ command so that those who looked upon it might be healed. In any case, the understanding is that no graven image was to be made that would be worshipped as divine, as the pagans practiced. I have already explained that Catholics do not worship images. We recall the ones represented. Further, the ECONOMY OF IMAGES is somewhat different for Christians than it is for Jews. Why? It has to do with the incarnation of Christ. God became a human being in Jesus Christ. He is God’s Son. The image of Christ in statuary or in pictures (as found in bibles and in religious art) is permissible because Jesus is the revelation of the Father. He shows us the face of God. That is why at Christmas everyone knows what child rests in the manger, no matter how depicted in art. It is the Christ-child. God reveals himself in our shared humanity. God assumed our human nature that we might be redeemed and saved. He dies on the Cross for our sake. This is in the catechism!

DKMENSA:

Exodus 20:5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me.

FATHER JOE:

The reference to “bow down” has less to do with posture as it does with worship. Again, we as Catholics are not so stupid as to think statuary made from plaster can save us. Do you think us fools? We do not serve religious art, but the God who is honored by his saints who shed their blood in imitation of Christ. We take up our crosses and we follow Jesus. The God of Catholics is the same as that of the Jews. However, we believe that this God has revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit: three divine persons in one God. Jesus is faithful to the Father unto the Cross. He offers his flesh and blood as a blameless oblation to the Father on Calvary. He died and then by the power of the Holy Spirit, (his own power), raised himself from the dead. He sent the Paraclete or Holy Spirit upon the infant Church. He ascended to the Father and sits at his right hand. He told his apostles (see the end of Matthew’s Gospel) to go out to the entire world and to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is my faith. This is the Catholic faith. What part of it do you find objectionable? This is also in the catechism… and in our BIBLES!

If you have any concern about your own salvation and the danger of misrepresenting fellow Christians, then I would urge you to study Catholicism NOT from her enemies but from her own mouth. Then you personally can say YES or NO. But just because you WERE a Catholic, do not presume in pride that you already know it all. Christians should always approach one another and the mysteries of faith with TRUE HUMILITY.  I will pray for you.

DKMENSA:

I agree that according to the Commandment, any image made of things on earth or in heaven (e.g. the Cross, Jesus, Mary) must not be made with the intention to worship, bow down to, pay homage, etc.

FATHER JOE:  There is really very little that we agree upon.

Christians Killing Christians, Enough Blame to Go Around

No matter whether Protestant or Catholic, the late Pope John Paul II lamented that believers in Christ would sometimes seek to use violence against consciences and to forcibly stamp their religion upon others.  The Medieval view was that heresy was a mortal sin that killed the soul.  Some argued that such was a capital crime given that the murder of souls was direr than the murder of bodies.  Governments also usurped religion for political purposes, seeing religion as glue that held society together.  On both sides there was often exaggeration as to the blood lust of the other.  Indeed, to this very day, anti-Catholic bigots will use impossibly large numbers in their prejudicial arguments and slurs against the Church.  Some critics bring up the crusades or the inquisitions as if they happened last Tuesday.  Forgotten is the real threat that Islam posed for the Christian world and how money and power, as well as an invention called the printing press, fueled the Protestant Reformation.  Many of the inquisition courts were very modest in their efforts.  While there were various national courts, when there is criticism, the target is usually the harsher Spanish Inquisition, which was even criticized by Rome.  Further, as I already said, 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.

morethomas

What was the position of the Protestant reformers? 

Calvin sought to persecute heretics (particularly Roman Catholics) so as to keep Protestant believers in the lands divided by the Reformation faithful to his new teachings. He viciously persecuted the Spaniard, Michael Servetus, having him burnt alive on October 27, 1553. As early as 1545, Calvin had written, “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive.” He kept his promise.  (Here is a case where Protestants attacked their own in that Servetus, while having a brother who was a Catholic priest, had participated in the Protestant Reformation.  Unfortunately, he was regarded as a heretic by both sides.)

Melancthon, one of the more mild reformers and the editor for Luther’s many works and teachings, would write to Bullinger, “I am astonished that some persons denounce the severity that was so justly used in that case.”

Theodore of Beza wrote: “What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin’s Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.” He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience “worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases.”

Martin Luther also fanned the flames of intolerance, “Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”

Much of this information (and numbers) is taken from The Truth about the Inquisition by John A. O’Brien and published in 1950 by The Paulist Press.  It should be noted that the numbers of deaths under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth have been challenged by other researchers.

King Henry VIII of England took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor.  O’Brien states that the king took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured.  Father Francis Marsden offers the correction:  “Henry’s victims were John Fisher and Thomas More, the Carthusian abbots and monks, and a few more Catholics, plus all those (several hundred) executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace.  There were also a number of Protestants executed for denying the Six Articles of 1540. But he certainly did not kill 72,000.”  Nevertheless, the best estimate from Wikipedia is that approximately 70,000 people were executed (for all offenses) during the reign of Henry VIII.  Another critic suggests that there may have been 4,000 Catholics killed under Henry VIII, not “judicially” executed, but killed by agents of the Crown, soldiers and the like. There were some Catholic revolts put down by force.  The figures go up and down, making a historical analysis difficult.  But for those facing death, no matter what the number, it was bad.

Queen Elizabeth, says O’Brien, proved herself the former’s daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years!  Here too, Father Marsden insists that “In England and Wales, we have about 500 martyrs and confessors in total over the period 1534 to 1679. I believe the last Catholic died in prison about 1720.  Elizabeth’s victims may have been about 300, plus those executed after the rising of the Northern Earls of 1569-70. But this is over the whole of her reign, 1558-1603.”  By contrast, “the death toll of the Inquisition is in the range 2000 to 5000.”

Yes, there was more than enough blame to go around. Maybe it is time for respect and dialogue and if need be, the charitable anathema, instead of mockery and half-truths?  Of course, sometimes the truth is hard to discover.  I was told that one of Sir Thomas More’s own letters makes mention of the death of 4,000 Catholics in the minor port town of Chelsea.  However, another critic corrected that in 1528 the population of Chelsea was reported to be 190 adults and children, including 16 households which grew no corn, and Sir Thomas More reported that 100 were fed daily in his household, 49 though not all those would have been living in the parish. In 1548 there were 75 communicants (16 years and over).

The Catholic Truth Society reckoned that 318 men and woman were put to death for the Faith in England between the reigns of Henry VII and Charles II. “After being hanged up, they were cut down, ripped up, and their bowels were burned in their faces.”

The entire population of England and Wales at that time was only around 4 million.

O’Brien makes reference to the whole vicious enmity that would bring persecution and deaths for centuries.  Henry VIII got the ball rolling (or heads rolling) and even had himself declared head of the Church in Ireland.  Monasteries were closed and destroyed, monks were imprisoned, dispersed and executed, and lands were confiscated.

It was a Protestant England that committed genocide upon a starving Catholic Ireland.  The guilt for that blood is on the hands of many, including the one who initiated the break with the true Church.  Today, the truth of this betrayal is admitted in UK school text books.  Crops were sold by the landowners even as the tenants themselves starved.

Married Priests Now? Um, No Thank You!

Cathy feels very strongly that the Church should allow priests to marry. I took exception to her opinion.

CATHY:  It is impossible to make the 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.

FATHER JOE:  You are presumptuous that many priests have “fooled around.”  Most Catholic priests are faithful to their promises and to the commitment of obedience and celibacy.  Priests are normal men who grew up in families.  We also deal with the marriages and families of others.  Many married people who have come to understand what priesthood entails have themselves told me that celibacy is the best way.  The Catholic preference is that the priest’s wife and family is his parish— he belongs to them, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (or 366 in leap year).  I am not saying that we do not have some good and holy married priests.  We do.  But the daily character of their priesthood and personal life is very different.  It has to be or they would not be good and faithful husbands and fathers.  Even things that are usually reckoned as good can be distractions to the priest.  Here I speak not just about activity but about the donation or surrender of himself and of his heart.

CATHY:  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.

FATHER JOE:  First, the sacrament of marriage comes with the Christian dispensation; all that comes before belongs to the natural covenant of marriage.  Second, the mention of fruitfulness comes not as a command in itself but rather as part of man’s stewardship over creation.  Third, what we are dealing with here is a divine benediction or blessing.  We read:  “God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth. (Genesis 1:28).  Fourth, it is a generalized matter for the whole human race and not a particular command to individuals.  You personally cannot fill the earth and subdue it.  You personally do not have mastery over all the animals.  There is no commandment that says that men and women MUST get married.  Choosing celibacy is not simply opting never to get married; rather, it is the decision to love in another way.  Marriage is regarded by the Church as a natural right.  However, the man called to priesthood or religious life opts not to exert this right.  Yes, it does signify sacrificial love but so does marriage.  What makes it a higher form of love is that it is the road less traveled.  It points in a unique fashion to the coming kingdom where there will neither be marriage nor the giving in marriage.  This is what theologians mean when they speak of priestly celibacy as an eschatological sign.

CATHY:  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.

FATHER JOE:  Are you so sure?  Have you noticed the divorce and remarriage rates among Lutheran clergy?  Child abuse rates are higher in marriages than among celibate clergy.  No, you are very wrong about this.  The Church could make the discipline of celibacy optional; however, it will neither be because of scandals nor because genital sexual expression has become a modern necessity.

CATHY:  How can ministers of the word even begin to identify with parishioners if they have not lived through some of their circumstances, especially since ministry begins in the home?

FATHER JOE:  Again, you pile one false presupposition upon another.  Priests do not come from distant Pluto.  We have grown up in families, some good and a few that were dysfunctional.  Priests prepare couples for marriage, give counseling, interact regularly with families, and know all the blessings and malignancies that can plague the home.  It comes first through our pastoral training and then in our daily association with the people we serve.  I would suspect in all this that priestly experience is far beyond yours or that of many married people.  This is precisely an area where celibacy frees the priest so that he can be available to his parishioners.  Otherwise, the cares and tribulations of his own home would have to come first.

CATHY:  Sex is not vile if done within marriage. It is a God sanctioned act.

FATHER JOE:  Did I ever say that sex was vile?  Please do not put words into my mouth.  The marital act consummates the marital union and it regularly renews the covenant of the spouses with each other and with God.  Marital love and family are great treasures; but celibate love is a still greater gift.  You do not prize it.  You do not understand.  This is the tragedy of the modern age.  We agree with St. Paul, that the single-hearted love of God (celibacy) is the better way.  But, it is not the only way.  God will give the gift of celibacy to any man truly called to the priesthood.  I firmly believe this.  We see it realized in the lives of thousands upon thousands of priests.

CATHY:  This not being married is a man sanctioned decree.

FATHER JOE:  There are doctrinal components, but yes it is what the Church terms a discipline.  Remember that the Church is both a human and a divine institution.  While the Church has charge over such disciplines, it is the mind of the Church that celibacy pleases God and that such reflects his providential will over the orders of the Church.

CATHY:  Every prophet and most of the apostles including St. Peter were married.

FATHER JOE:  So what?  We still have married clergy, a few priests and many deacons.  And they are permitted to exercise their marital prerogatives.  However, many married clergy in the early Church opted after their ordinations to live like Joseph and Mary.  They may have had children before ordination but then practiced perfect and perpetual continence just as the Jewish priests practiced temporary abstention during their terms of service.

CATHY:  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:  What you say here is not entirely topical to this discussion.  But, your gullibility frightens me.  Have you missed all the uproar this past year about religious liberty?  I have a parish with members from Asia and Africa.  They have seen their priests killed and churches at home destroyed.  I know priests here at home who have suffered the prison cell for peacefully protesting evils in our society like abortion.  I suspect the day will soon come when declaring homosexual acts as sinful from the pulpit will be equated as hate-speech.  When that happens, we will see many more priests behind bars.  A priest-friend was murdered in his bedroom just a few years ago by a madman unhappy with him.  We had several priests up north killed by a homeless man who beat their brains out with the very soup can with which these holy men sought to give the beggar nourishment.  The family of married priests, as with ministers, can become the ground for manipulation and the cause for passivity in the face of evil.  How is that?  The celibate priest has only himself.  The married man thinks first of his wife and children.  He needs an income to provide for them.  He needs a home to shelter them.  The world plays hardball all the time.  How many ministers have shut their mouths on certain issues for fear of alienating parishioners and forfeiting lucrative positions?  We have some incredibly poor parishes.  We already have men who can barely pay their small salaries.  Could you raise a family on a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars a month?  When all the assessments are paid there is not much left.  Sometimes there is nothing left.  The Church’s resources go back into our care for the poor, our schools, hospitals, and churches.  As I said, we belong to the people we serve.

Another Anti-Catholic Pays a Visit

The following is my response to Steve Thompson who posted comments against the Priesthood, the Church, and Mary.

STEVE:  Joe, you are NOT my father.

FATHER JOE:  I certainly hope not because I do not know your mother.

STEVE:  Jesus said to “…call no man father except Father who is in heaven.”

FATHER JOE:  Yes, and he also said to call no man your teacher, but we have many teachers.  We also have biological fathers.  Saint Paul even spoke about himself as a spiritual father.  Priests are also spiritual fathers.  Jesus uses Hebraic hyperbole so as to make an emphatic statement or emphasis.  It is the Jewish way of adding an exclamation point, by making an outrageous claim.  Our fatherhood should amplify and make clear the reality of God as our Father.  God cares about us.  Similarly, genuine teachers teach in conformity to the truths revealed by God.  Anything else is forbidden.

STEVE:  The Catholic church is full of pedophile priests.

FATHER JOE:  Actually, it is not.  There were as many sick men as in the general population and we have made a real effort to remove them from ministry and to enact policies to protect our children.  But let us be honest, you are not so concerned about the issues and answers as you are eager to pounce on the Catholic Church (large ‘C’).

STEVE:  Jesus Christ is our high priest, and the pastoral epistles (Timothy I & II, Titus) outline the church offices, whereby you will not find monks, nuns, cardinals and popes.

FATHER JOE:   Cardinals are the electors for Popes.  The Church at one time selected the Bishop of Rome in other ways.  Most Cardinals are bishops or at least priests.  Your mistake is a failure to discern that the titles or labels attached to ministries and sacraments have changed over time.  Everything that the Church is today is planted by Christ and grew up during the apostolic period.  Ministers are called pastors, a name originally associated with shepherds.  Our bishops to this very day carry the shepherd’s staff or crozier as a sign of their office.  Men are ordained, elders (presbyters) are appointed and the qualifications for bishops (episcopoi) are detailed.  Deacons are selected to care for the Greek widows and they preach the Good News.  St. John would become a part of an ascetic community.  The desert fathers would trace their piety to him.  Early Christian monastic communities would model themselves on the Jewish communities as at Qumran.  Like St. Paul, many would embrace a celibate way of love and life.  While the title was not always used, all the Popes are successors of St. Peter.  The charge given him by Christ is also given to them.  “You are Rock!  Feed my sheep!  I give to you the keys of the kingdom.”

STEVE:  Christians do not need human priests, popes, nor the “mother of God,” since God has no mother.

FATHER JOE:

The unique mediation of Christ as our great High Priest does not preclude the extension of Christ’s ministry through his priests.  Indeed, the Bible makes this point.  Our Lord told his apostles to perpetuate the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper) in remembrance of him.  He gave Peter universal jurisdiction over the Church.  He gave his priests the awesome power to forgive sins.  Read 2 Corinthians 5:14-21:  “Brothers and sisters: The love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died. He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. Consequently, from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer.  So whoever is in Christ is A NEW CREATION: the old things have passed away; behold new things have come. And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ AND GIVEN US THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them AND ENTRUSTING TO US THE MESSAGE OF RECONCILIATION.  SO WE ARE AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST, AS IF GOD WERE APPEALING THROUGH US.  We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

As for the title MOTHER OF GOD given to Mary, it is the language or communication through idioms.  What are you, a heretical Nestorian?  Mary’s title defends the divine identity of her Son.  Mary is a blessed creature preserved from sin and chosen by God to be the vehicle through which the Messiah and Lord would enter our world.  Your rebuke against her is most foul and unbefitting a Christian.  But are you a Christian?  Do you believe in the Trinity?  Do you believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity made incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit?  Do you believe that he is the eternal Word made man?  Those who argued that Mary was only the mother of the man were interpreted as denying that Jesus was a divine Person.

STEVE:  Catholic Jesuits endorsed the Inquisitions, and their banana republic nations in South America reflect what this religion is really all about.

FATHER JOE:  Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans were involved with numerous Church courts.  Many of these functioned as civil courts do today, seeking to preserve public order.  Various nations misused particular inquisitional authority, but in some kingdoms the efforts were very mild.  Protestant and Catholic nations both sometimes misused religion.  The numbers of people wronged are often exaggerated, some pushing from a few thousand to other critics ridiculously suggesting millions (which would have emptied Europe of any and all population).  People also suffered in the ancient prisons from poor health conditions.  You wrong the Jesuits who died to bring the faith back to England.  Priests have also suffered torture and execution in Mexico, Central, Latin and South America from the very tyrants with whom you associate them.

STEVE:  Catholics/Popery signed a Concordat with Adolf Hitler during World War II.

FATHER JOE: 

The Concordat was signed in 1933, a number of years before World War II.  Hitler’s Germany would break such agreements just as it would with France, Russia and other nations.  The Concordat was to protect the status and work of the Church in a totalitarian fascist state.  The Church was very much at odds with Hitler and was seeking breathing room.  The Church wanted to insure the spiritual care of 20 million German Catholics.  It was not approval for a Socialist state that was philosophically antithetical to Catholic faith and values.   Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge in 1937.  It was drafted by Pope Pius XII and read in all the Catholic churches.   It criticized Hitler, National Socialism, and the persecution underway.  Catholics were warned that Nazism was incompatible with Catholic Christianity.

Your insinuations or perjury to the contrary is a gross violation of the commandment against false witness.  This was one of the strongest condemnations ever offered by the Vatican!

STEVE:  Furthermore, your Maryolatry is based on the pagan “Queen of Heaven” cult going back to Nimrod/Semiramis, Venus, Diana, Isis and Aphrodite. Get yourself a copy of the Two Babylons by Alexsander Hislop and you will learn what I already know about your religion.

FATHER JOE:  I have a first edition hardback copy on my anti-Catholic bigotry shelf.  The book Two Babylons by Alexsander Hislop is a joke and represents the worst of twisted logic and poor scholarship.  Only anti-Catholic bigots take it seriously because it fuels their hatred against Catholicism.  He equates similarities with an absent historical progression.  It is up there with spurious works like Chariots of the Gods by Erich von Däniken, although his fancy are ancient alien astronauts.

STEVE:  The Catholic Church is all about the Babylonian religion, priestcraft and sacraments (Your so called 7 saving sacraments could not save anyone from anything).

FATHER JOE:  The Catholic Church is the most authentic and original form of Christianity.  The apostles were the first bishop-priests.  The sacraments or as they were once called, the divine mysteries, are sacred signs instituted by Christ to give grace.  They enter us into the Paschal Mystery of Christ.  It is because of this that they have saving value.  The priests of the Church participate in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ.  Jesus offers the Eucharist.  Jesus forgives sins.  There is no contradiction.

STEVE:  Anyone can have access to Jesus Christ directly without your pagan plumbing, including but not limited to Maryolatry, Popery and your priestcraft.

FATHER JOE: 

The Church encourages both a personal and a corporate faith in Jesus Christ.  You would shortchange others just as you do to yourself.  Separated from the Church, believers are liable to lose their way just as you have.  We do not come to God alone.  You are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise.  Without the Church, you would have neither a Bible nor someone to translate and pass it on.  The Holy Spirit watches over the Pope and bishops to insure the faithful transmission of the deposit of faith.  As for Mary, precious biblical prophecy is preserved in Catholicism that you out-rightly reject:

Prayers and Intercession of Mary

Luke 2: 33-35:  “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.’”

Honoring Mary

Luke 1: 46-49:  “And Mary said:  ‘My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.  For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; BEHOLD, FROM NOW ON WILL ALL AGES CALL ME BLESSED.  The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. ’”

STEVE:  Peter was married and there was no “pope” for 300 years.

FATHER JOE:  The Church began with many married ministers but later decided that celibate love was more desirable for our Christian shepherds.  So what?  But there were indeed Bishops of Rome or Popes, extending from Christ to the present day.  Clement of Rome wrote an epistle or papal letter to the Corinthians in 96 AD!  The Popes and the Church was proclaiming the Gospel even though the New Testament had not been completely written and the biblical canon had yet to be formed.

STEVE:  Your religion is mostly man made.

FATHER JOE:  Sorry, but such is the charge that convicts you.  You have made yourself into the great authority of the divine and arbiter of truth.  You oppose the Pope by making yourself a false Pope.  You strip Christianity of its richness and truths.  Yours is a religion of hate and bigotry.  You define your faith by what you oppose and offer little of lasting value.  You poison the mix.

STEVE:  You killed people during the Middle Ages for owning a Bible or part of one, and read the services in Latin so no one could understand them.

FATHER JOE: 

Me?  Actually I was not born until the last century.

Your charges do not stick against the Church, either.  Disagreements I can understand, but I am always challenged to keep my cool in the face of bigoted ignorance.  Before the printing press, bibles took years to make and churches preserved them so that all might benefit.  Many people could not even read which is why bible stories were told with images in stained-glass windows (something else I suspect you hate).  Latin was originally used as the language of the people.  Church language transitioned from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek to Latin.  Modern English did not even exist as a language.  The languages of man changed over time and the Romance languages grew from Latin:  Italian, French and Spanish.  Latin was preserved as the language of the Church reflecting the changeless quality of faith.  Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  Today the liturgy is translated into the vernacular.

STEVE:  I was blessed by God to have never been born into this religious institution.

FATHER JOE: 

People are not born into the Church as through nature; rather, they are reborn into the Church through faith and baptism.  Some as children and others as adults are initiated.  Parents and sponsors witness for a child and we trust that the same baptismal promises will be personally professed in Confirmation.  We become temples of the Holy Spirit, members of a priestly people and a holy nation.  We are fashioned by grace into the likeness of Christ.  We become adopted sons and daughters of our heavenly Father.  Jesus who is our King becomes our elder brother and Mary is the Queen Mother.  The saints are our spiritual brothers and sisters.  We become members of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.  We become inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.

We are the ones truly blessed and we would pray that you might know such blessing!

Limbo in Limbo, or Suburb of Hell?

nurp-playground.gifCan 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]. 

baby4.gifThe 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.

nurple-mothersmilk.gifThe 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.

nurple-devilchild.gifORIGINAL 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.