Catholic | Blogger Priest

Catholic Church Under Attack in U.S.

Posted on March 8, 2009 by Father Joe

Do we see here the latest faces of evil? While a certain anti-Catholicism has long been fashionable in the U.S., these bigots pull no punches in attacking the divinely instituted hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church: Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald of Connecticut. Why? It is because these gay men hate the Church for her position against same-sex civil unions. More about this below.

DIOCESE OF BRIDGEPORT VERSUS CONNECTICUT LEGISLATORS

Watch the video with Bishop William Lori where he warns of the crisis.

TEXT OF RAISED BILL IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE #1098

A Bill that would strip Bishops of their authority over parishes!

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS ALERT!!!

Catholics must stand together against this attack upon the nature of the Church!

The latest and most intrusive step so far against the Catholic Church is in Connecticut. True Catholics must pray and support the Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Bill Lori, formerly a priest of my archdiocese, Washington, DC, is headed for the fight of his life. What happens there will have repercussions for the Church throughout the entire nation. Fortunately, he is up to the fight and is also Supreme Chaplain to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.

This is not Red China with its puppet “patriotic” Catholic Church; but that is precisely what certain legislators in Connecticut must think. A bill has been put forward that would directly interfere with the internal activities and structure of the Catholic Church. Other churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples are ignored; the Catholic Church alone (at least for now) has been targeted by name. Bill 1098 would strip Catholic bishops of their direct oversight over their parishes. The state would force the bishops to hand their jurisdiction to an elected board of directors. Clergy would not be allowed on this board, only laymen and laywomen. The bishop or his representative could sit with the 7 to 13 members, but he would have NO VOTE.

The overall authority of bishops over their priests and congregations comes from the apostles and the charge given them by Jesus. This legislation rejects the Catholic stance and forces a reformed Protestant form of government upon the Catholic Church. The Church rejected boards of controlling trustees over parishes after the Revolutionary War. Only the Protestant reformers, and not all of them, suggested that the bishops be stripped of their authority. Such a measure would reduce bishops to figureheads, good for periodic Confirmations but nothing more. Pastors would be hired, fired and treated as employees by these boards. Pastors would no longer be true pastors at all. I am sure the Vatican would never have any of it. But what would happen then, a forced schism where the legitimate bishops would govern from exile and their priests minister under tents while the state flunkies took over Church properties and changed policies? Such a view by which the laity rules the Church has been condemned as heretical by the Magisterium. We each have our role to play and the bishops should not be stripped of theirs. How could anyone in government dare think they could rewrite the system of governance for the Catholic Church? This is an obscenity to the freedom of religion!

The diocese of Bridgeport has explained the situation as follows:

“This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church. We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:

Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.

It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power.

It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights.
It is time for us to defend our Church!”

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is found in what is properly called the “Bill of Rights”. It contains these clear words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This bill violates the rights of the Catholic Church and the faith of her good people. It is also unconstitutional and we can only hope that good sense prevails. But, even if we win this one; what about the next attack or the one after that? The Church has a hierarchical structure that comes down to us from Christ’s institution. This legislation is anti-Catholic bigotry at its best. Note that we alone are singled-out for such treatment. It is to be forced upon us because the Church refuses to be silent about such evils as same-sex unions and abortion. Do not think for one moment that these boards would be composed of good practicing Catholics who kiss the hands of their priest each Sunday. No, these would be the dissenters taking charge.

No doubt the scandal of a few bad priests and allegations of abuse weighs in the background for many people, but the rationale given here is that the bishops and Church cannot manage their own financial house. Bishop Lori rightly finds this reasoning quite fantastic, given their high degree of accountability and good management. By contrast, the State of Connecticut cannot close a one billion dollar deficit and the full story will never be told upon the government waste and corruption. The real reason for this Bill is hatred of the Catholic Church and resentment about the tough moral stands she has taken. It is no accident that the day before it was submitted, the same-sex marriage Bill was to be heard. This Bill which focuses on the juridical structure of the Catholic Church is only a thinly veiled attempt to silence our voice. Note that other churches are not targeted for such take-over. The two main proponents are radically involved with the homosexual agenda and hate the Church for refusing to pander to perversity. There can be no doubt, these men are out to destroy the Catholic Church as we know her.

Imagine for a moment what these boards might quickly put on the agenda if they should take charge:

Their first objective would be achieved: approval of same-sex couples, blessings over them and wedding ceremonies.
Next would come condom and pill distribution from Catholic Charities and training sessions for CCD kids and parish youth groups.
Parish pro-life groups would be disowned and replaced with Planned Parenthood or NARAL promoters.
Married priests would be invited back, especially after orthodox celibates are fired.
In short order, women would be ordained and received as priests in the parishes.
Divorce and remarriage would be permitted.
The Protestant “open” communion table would be established, welcoming everyone for communion, even your Buddhist friends.
ACT-UP and Dignity would operate so-called gay-friendly activities using parish funds and property.

MIKE LAWLOR ATTACKS CATHOLICISM AT GAY MARRIAGE HEARING:

The late Pope John Paul II told the young people at World Youth Day that they had to remain strong in the faith. He prophesied that many of them would face great persecution and maybe even suffer martyrdom. While he worked for a better tomorrow and reconciliation with groups which had historic grievances with Catholicism; nevertheless, when asked about the future he said he had a vision of BLOOD.

Many people assert that here in America we are safe to worship as we please. However, religion is about more than ritual, it is also about ideas and activism. Already there are politicians and organizations who oppose basic ideas and activities which touch core tenets of Catholicism. The question of the war aside, the Bush Administration was a momentary respite, an oasis in a storm that was looming ever closer and closer. Now that Obama is president, I suspect we shall find the ark of Peter frequently assailed and with few earthly friends to lend assistance. Catholics in the pews have grown timid to defend and help. They must be awakened from their moral slumber. As in many nations, certain Catholics have become the Church’s worst enemies. Even here in the United States, many Catholic pro-abortion politicians in the House of Representatives, the Senate and in the Executive branch oppose the Church’s efforts for the Gospel of Life. State governments are also turning against us. Many of these efforts are fueled by the big money that organizations like Planned Parenthood can muster. Add to this the general enmity that the ACLU and other such entities have against us, and well, this fight is going to have casualties.

Pretty much every year there is an effort here in Maryland to force Catholic hospitals to do abortion referrals and to distribute contraception, even if abortifacient. So far we have been on the winning side, but for how much longer? Maryland bishops have said they would close the hospitals before allowing any collaboration in murder and sin. The Church in Los Angeles took heat about their insurance plans for employees and was pressured to add same-sex partners to the mix. There is also growing insistence that artificial contraception be included in health plans, despite the Church’s view that such practices constitute mortal sin. The Church in Boston had to shut down their adoption program operated through Catholic Charities because the authorities insisted that they would also have to adopt children out to homosexual couples. No one thought the Archbishop would take such a step, but he had the courage to make the right move. The new president has made no secret that he opposes any “conscience clause” for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who want nothing to do with abortion, embryonic destruction and artificial contraception. Stripped of legal protection, many pro-life professionals and Catholics will have their licenses stripped and be removed from their jobs.

Discussion About the Topic

REALIST:

You are certifiably crazy, and are scaring people away from the Church. The proposals you have made should this law pass are INSANE. Ridiculous! I’m ashamed you are still a priest. Have some honor and speak about the issues rationally instead of just spewing anti-Obama hatred. More flies with honey…

FATHER JOE:

I would rather be a fool for Christ and have you think I am crazy than to be you on the Judgment Day. I will pray for your immortal soul.

And by the way, I do not hate Obama; I am just upset that his administration is so set on destroying the unborn. Did you hear the news today? He is reversing Bush’s policies on the use of embryos for research. Of course, I doubt you care, except as another proponent for murder and perversion. Yes, I suspect you will be very happy with this administration.

MICHAEL:

Fr. Joe, on the subject of the Church and the government, I wanted to ask a question about the tax exemption status and the Catholic Church. There has been a black minister on You Tube. He has been openly and severely critical of Obama before and after the election. I was unable to find his email address, because I wanted to send a message asking him if his church lost its tax exemption status as a result of his many verbal tirades. According to IRS regulations, tax-exempt organizations are not permitted to engage in partisan politics, including endorsing candidates or political parties or helping a candidate win an election. To me, tax exemption status makes the church political when she should be entirely spiritual. Priests shouldn’t be afraid to mention names before or after an election IF those in question commit to harming society in any way. We can’t continue to allow our government to tell us how to evangelize or to tell us to shut up in the face of wrongdoing. The church is God’s living voice on Earth. I wonder how our Catholic brothers and sisters in other parts of the world deal with this issue?

FATHER JOE:

It is argued that many black churches are in the hip pocket of the Democrat party. There is no denying that candidates and politicians even speak at services and are endorsed from the pulpit. The so-called political RIGHT is castigated as Republican and is often challenged on their political efforts. Catholic churches are frequently threatened and for the most part remain silenced out of fear that tax exemption and other favors might be lost. We are allowed to talk about issues, but not candidates or politicians. Meanwhile, everyone votes for Obama. There seems a disconnect with moral issues and religious liberty.

JIM OF BOWIE:

Father, thank you so much for speaking out on this; we need to wake up the people as to what is going on in Washington and in many state capitals. The Church is under attack and it is only going to get worse. I have only seen this issue covered on yours and Father Z’s blog. Hopefully more blogs, priests and bishops will speak out. Laura Ingraham did a report on her radio show today with Raymond Arroyo. So maybe EWTN will be on top of it. Let us pray for Bishop Lori.

KAY:

As I read about proposed legislation like this, I am inclined to think that it is so bizarre, so un-American, and so bigoted, that it surely would not be taken seriously. However, more and more often in this country, we are seeing just this kind of craziness get voted into law. Maybe it is an insidious movement to propose the bizarre without much hope that it can be passed. But the publicity surrounding the effort causes more and more people to become desensitized and eventually the bizarre and un-American seems perfectly logical and desirable. It is so sad to see this happening to our country. Thank God for prayer as a resource because I think that is our only hope.

DON:

The smoke of Satan is mixed with the roar of lions over at the coliseum. Lent is a good time to pick up your crosses and follow Christ (to the State Capitol) all you Ct voters (only the ones that didn’t vote for the pro-infanticide president please.)

A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:

Unfortunately, those who voted for Obama and the Democratic Party only encourage this sort of behavior. They have been seduced by style over substance.

We can expect more of this stuff. They have unlimited resources. They have the resources of the government. They will do this until we are bled dry and finally give up.

KARL:

This legislation seems to me to be an open and shut hate crime and should be prosecuted as such using the state’s own laws. It would simply take a prosecutor with some chutzpah. It should not be a surprise, however, that the Catholic Church is under such withering attack; she belongs to Christ, even in her sinfulness. Perhaps those who claim Catholicism unworthily will come to their senses or leave it, making who are left more faithful.

A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:

The attorney who has encouraged this (Tom Galagher) is not only a Knight of Columbus, but is affiliated w/ VOTF. Talk about your 5th Columns!

FATHER JOE:

Tom Gallagher is not only a Knight of Columbus, but also belongs to the Order of Malta and the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher. These guys have taken and run with his ideas, but did he intend to so thoroughly cut the bishop out of the equation?

LADY GODLESS:

I’ve found some info about SB 1098 from the article in the Stamford Advocate… this proposal was previously introduced by a Republican at the behest of a citizen named Tom Gallagher, one of the people who asked McDonald and Lawlor to submit the proposal this time around:

“Democrats have crossed the line between church and state,” GOP Chairman Christopher Healy said.

“But last year a Republican, former Rep. Dolly Powers of Greenwich, pursued similar legislation. Powers said she submitted a proposal on behalf of constituent Tom Gallagher, a driving force behind the bill now pending before the Judiciary Committee.”

“If a constituent has an issue and they bring it to any legislator, that’s part of your job,” Powers said.

McDonald and Lawlor point out that they have submitted this idea for discussion on behalf of a group of their constituents, but they themselves do not necessarily advocate adopting the proposed legislation.

SB 1098 is the result of a real and bitter conflict ‘within’ the Catholic Church, and is not the result of a conflict between the Catholic Church and outsiders:

“Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he scheduled the bill for a public hearing Wednesday because he was asked to do so by southwestern Connecticut Catholics, including members of Darien and Greenwich churches where large sums of money have disappeared.”

“At St. John, the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, who’s serving a three-year prison term, stole $1.4 million from 1999 to 2006 to finance a luxury lifestyle, including a Florida condo, he shared with his gay lover.”

“At St. Michael two years ago, the Rev. Michael Moynihan quit as pastor in a financial scandal. About $2.1 million in parish contributions was taken off the books in two accounts and at least $400,000 was diverted to the priest for his personal use, according to the diocese.”

Connecticut already has corporate law that applies specifically to the Catholic Church, and the current statute has been in place since the 1950s. This is not a new thing. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says that the currently existing law may have constitutional problems itself.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_11874848

MICHAEL:

http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/Fight_1098.shtml

Please keep this in your prayers. Also remember the promise of our Lord to St. Peter that the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against His Church.

Make no mistake about it. It’s not going to happen in Bridgeport or in any other diocese anywhere in the world. History has proven this true time and time again within the last two thousand years. Every attempt has always ended in failure. The Roman Empire tried repeatedly to destroy the Catholic Church and failed miserably each and every time. This time will be NO DIFFERENT.

GHOST:

McDonald says he introduced the bill at the request of members of St. John Church on the Post Road in Darien because their former pastor, Rev. Michael Jude Fay, stole over a period of years as much as $1.4 million from funds donated by parishioners. Rev. Fay was convicted in 2007. He used the money to fund a life of luxury with his boyfriend. He rented limousines for himself and his mother (totaling $130,000 in costs) but also drove a Jaguar, stayed at elegant hotels (like the Ritz Carlton, Hotel de Paris and Four Seasons), bought expensive jewelry (from Cartier) and imported Italian clothing. He also had membership at a sports club and shopped at Bergdorf Goodman, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on home furnishings and meals. More than $20,000 was spent to mark his 25th anniversary of ordination. The robber priest even spent the money on a Florida condo where he would hang out with his boyfriend. Diocesan auditors discovered the scandal. Half the money was hidden in a secret bank account. In Greenwich, another priest, Rev. Michael Moynihan, resigned in January after an initial audit uncovered a half million dollars in church spending for which he could not account. It is not anti-Catholic to want parish money to be applied to the proper ends for which it is donated. However, the remedy is not to strip the bishops and pastors of their juridical standing and responsibilities.

Both Tom Galagher and Fr. Paul Lakeland, S.J. are progressives and arguably dissenters from accepted Catholic ecclesiology. It makes no difference that Galagher is a Knight, former parish trustee and missionary. As for Rev. Lakeland, our suffering Church knows many rebel priests, oops, excuse me, he is an ex-priest who broke his vows to get married. Lakeland is a defender of the theologian Roger Haight whose Christology was condemned by the Holy See and who has his credentials to teach as a Catholic theologian removed. He would promote religious indifferentism and minimize the unique redemptive work of Christ for all humanity. Height would strip Christ of his authority and Lakeland would do something similar for the Catholic Church. Lakeland espouses both women priests and a Church operated by the laity (see his books, CATHOLICISM AT THE CROSSROADS and THE LIBERATION OF THE LAITY). The beans are spilt about Galagher over at TOPIX COMMENTS. No Spin Personality writes: “Let it be known that as a member of St. Mary Parish, Greenwich, Mr. Gallagher did not ‘step down as a Trustee in 1999’ he was terminated by the pastor. Secondly, let it be known the ‘difference of opinion’ was with the junior priest with the pastor as a witness where Mr. Gallagher provoked the priest with insults at a meeting. It is quite doubtful when Mr. Gallagher states that the encounter with the priest was an ‘incredibly rewarding experience that inspired his current efforts at Church reform’. Please know that Mr. Gallagher has been after Church reform long before that incident and is divisive at all levels of the church’s business and undoubtedly is anti-clerical most likely with an unconscious desire to be a priest himself and eventually become the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport.”

Both Galagher and Lakeland are members of VOTF, an organization that often finds itself at odds with the Church and has a perspective on Church structure and the priesthood which conflicts with the Magisterium, particularly with the view of Pope Benedict XVI. What revisionists are not admitting publicly is that Church finances and administration often reflect the Church’s doctrinal views and moral positions. The person who controls the purse strings ultimately controls the whole show.

MICHAEL: (March 11, 2009)

It was pulled, glory be to God!

http://cloudoffire.blogspot.com/

LADY GODLESS:

Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you.

The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism.

In other words, all those Democrats, Protestants, liberals, secularists, and gays that many people automatically started fulminating against are ~not~ the force behind this proposal.

Nor does SB 1098 indicate that blood is in the offing, or that anyone is out to martyr you, or that you will now be pressured to display portraits of Jesus that resemble President Obama instead of the currently preferred likeness of Kenny Loggins. What SB 1098 does indicate is that parishioners in certain Connecticut parishes feel that they’ve been cheated, and that they want redress.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/ci_11882379

MARY O:

Lady Godless said, “Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you. The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism. ”

I am NOT a Republican and right now I am ashamed to admit that both Gallagher and I are attorneys. Maybe though, he was sick the day they studied the First Amendment in first year law school Constitutional Law class. Gallagher may believe himself to be a devout Catholic, but if so, his knowledge of Catholicism is even more deficient than his knowledge of Constitutional Law.

I am outraged that because he cannot convince the Church that his way is “the Way,” Gallagher apparently decided to ask Big Brother to step in and remake the Church so that it would be more to the liking of Gallagher and his ilk.

Are we not to be concerned because this is just a “tiny” infringement of the First Amendment? Perhaps we should just chill until the government decides that the First Amendment needs to be done away with as not “progressive” enough.

As for Gallagher, “confession is good for the soul.”

NEED ANI PHONE:

Here is why we should be pro-choice: It is only for women that pregnancy may represent a health risk. It is only women’s career, which is put on hold, that pregnancy and the ensuing maternity leave affect. There are important questions to be debated, such as whether a pregnant woman in a significantly bad health condition should carry the unwanted pregnancy to term, or whether only healthy women in their child-bearing prime should anti-abortion legislation be targeted at.

FATHER JOE:

Pregnancy might be a health risk, but it is not unnatural or a disease. It is the perfectly natural result of having sexual intercourse.

The business about careers is false. I know men who changed their goals and took the jobs that immediately paid the bills for their children.

A woman might be ill, but if every sick mother killed her children to preserve her mental and physical health, we would not only have a lot of abortions but drowned and shot children as well.

If a healthy woman in her prime does not want her children, then give them up for adoption. I have a list of parents who would take them with no hesitation.

The bottom line has not changed. You can only say what you do because you do not believe the unborn child is a human being. Only fiendish monsters would argue that it is okay to murder children.

But wait a minute, maybe I am wrong about what you believe? After all, President Obama believes that living babies can be allowed to die from exposure and neglect after surviving an abortion… hum?

ANON:

With the exception of rape, the woman puts herself in the position of creating the “unwanted pregnancy.”

It is simply selfishness that is operative here.

Don’t make the false argument that “anti-abortion” legislation “targets” women. Face the truth that abortion is an excuse for selfish sexual gratification for women and IT TARGETS innocent children.

The important question that needs debate is whether you can keep that dime between your knees, sister and your partner in sexual satisfaction can have enough other interests to keep his mind off his own private parts and yours, as well.

Don’t blame the child, whom you created, for your lust.

I guess your precious job is more important than the job of the Catholic or other life-affirming person who will lose theirs because you had to have your abortifacients and they will not supply you with it!

You are no different, or less responsible, than the American with powdered nares whose demand for cocaine, to GET THEM OFF, provides the REASON for the drug cartel hit man to kill another border patrol agent, who gets in THEIR way of protecting THEIR “JOB”!

You are not PRO-CHOICE. You are a selfish brat who never learned self-control or the efficacy of placing the NEEDS of another over your WANTS!

LADY GODLESS:

Huh? Who are you talking to?

BOB:

I believe that “Anon” needs to DRASTICALLY cut back on the coffee!

ANON:

I have six children. The first child I had was the result of a relationship I had in college, before I was married. My plans were definitely put on hold. At that time in my life, I was encouraged by many to consider my “options.” After he was born, the measure of guilt I felt of actually considering those options effectively made me ill, and what is normally 3 day hospital stay for women who have given birth turned into a five day stay for me.

Once a child is created, there is no “choice” any longer, and those who believe that and act on it are in for true heartache.

Additionally, when I was pregnant with my 5th child, I was very ill. I had a condition which required surgery, which my doctors wanted to perform in my first trimester. My OB warned me about the potential harm to the baby and told me there was a very real possibility that the procedure could induce a miscarriage. Again, I was counseled by many to consider my “options.” If I knowingly did something that could produce a miscarriage, to me, that was a clean way of saying I might be choosing abortion. The 2nd trimester was safer for the baby, and though my plans were, again, interrupted by staying in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, I have an amazingly beautiful daughter who is healthy and well (and so am I).

God gives us children as a blessing- NOT A CURSE! As with everything else in life, sometimes those unexpected blessings require us to pick up our cross.

Abortion touches a chord with me, although I see the Church as paying more attention to abortion than it should, when more of its efforts should be towards marriages. Nevertheless, the post was directed towards NEED ANI PHONE who is typical of those who think of themselves first, their irresponsibility for creating the pregnancy, except in rape(which is STILL a wrong that cannot be answered with another (worse) wrong being pushed upon those who they DEMAND, join them in their crimes.

Her position and the defense of abortion is absurd. She should keep that dime between her legs and have the guy arrested and prosecuted who forces himself on her. Good riddance to him. To call him a pig would insult our hammy friends.

LADY DEE:

I am so grateful that such information is brought to the attention of the masses – good on you Father Joe! They say that what happens in America usually repeats itself in the United Kingdom up to 10 years later. Forewarned is forearmed! I truly believe that there are invidious persons buried deep inside our institutions – both religious and other – whose purpose is to take down anything which bands people together.

Why can’t Mr. Galagher, if he is so disaffected, count his true support by setting up his own group and fighting fairly and openly instead of using such poor fools as those named (McDonald and ?).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Homosexuality, Politics, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 4 Comments »

Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 2

Posted on May 25, 2007 by Father Joe

LINK: False Worship at John Paul II Cultural Center?

LINK: Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 1

SOROJ:

Obviously my opinion may be biased, given that I’m a Hindu myself. However, please bear with me. This is both a collection of my opinions as well as questions I’m curious about regarding the Catholic faith itself. Forgive my ignorance in advance.

First, I need something cleared up for my own knowledge. While idol worship is condemned within the Judeo-Christian faith, there is no church to my knowledge that does not have an image of Christ upon the Cross, at the very least. That, as far as I can tell, is an idol. The same goes for the icons of saints that are ubiquitous among Catholics.

FATHER JOE:

There are certain Protestant sects that prohibit even a corpus (body) upon a cross. A Baptist woman I know wears a plain cross but absolutely refuses to wear a crucifix. Catholics have no problem with crucifixes and statues; however they are only representations of religious personages or themes. They are not worshipped in themselves.

SOROJ:

The original intent, as far as I know, for forbidding that the Divine be contained in an image is that in our limited nature, we cannot capture His full essence, so to do so would be a vain act. So why are there so many crucifixes, paintings, icons, etc.?

FATHER JOE:

We believe that the incarnation of Christ, the God-Man, changes the economy of images and thus the Jewish prohibition in the Decalogue is modified. The divine is not contained in the image; rather images serve as a form of symbolic language.

SOROJ:

Second, if God decreed that “thou shalt have no other god before me,” then what about the saints? Of course they aren’t exactly “deified” but they are worshiped, no doubt. They are worshiped for what they stand for, whether it’s the protection of children, fertility, animals, or anything else. Of course it can be argued that they are being “venerated.” Yet, the definition given by Merriam Webster is “to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion,” which is not exactly different from worship. How do you differentiate between the two?

FATHER JOE:

A man might worship the woman he adores, but such is a sentiment of romance, not religious celebration. Saints are not worshipped. Divine worship is given to God alone. All prayer has God as its proper object. Saints are invoked within a special communion: the Church in pilgrimage on earth, the souls in purgation and the saints in glory. We ask the saints to intercede and pray with and for us to almighty God. We look to their lives as models of discipleship and for inspiration. The dictionary definition you cite is not precise enough. We venerate the saints as men and women who have been moved by divine grace to holy lives. We worship God as the source of all grace and holiness. We do not treat saints as deities. Mary is not a goddess. All that they have is given them. Saints are like the moon in the night sky. It shines but only because the light of the sun is reflected upon it. Similarly our Lord is the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Saints are those who allow his light to shine through them.

SOROJ:

Third, and this is more pertinent to your post, what exactly is the big deal? The values espoused by all religions are the same; the rituals though may be different. Does that make one religion more right than another? I wouldn’t necessarily call what happened at the John Paul II Cultural Center an act of, or an endorsement of so-called “false worship.” It is an acceptance of different points of view, regarding praying for knowledge and success, both material and spiritual. Inter-religious dialogue is the only way we can achieve peace. This doesn’t mean necessarily accepting or adopting the views of the other faith, but it does mean respecting their way of life and respecting their right to live it that way. So long as they aren’t causing undue suffering or death, what’s the harm?

FATHER JOE:

No, the values are not the same in all religions. There is both true and false religion. Some religions have no afterlife, others an offensive reincarnation (which offends our soteriology) and still others vary in many degrees from the Catholic or Christian view. Catholics believe that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. He is the pontifex or bridge from this world to the next, our path to the Father. He is the redeemer of the world, regardless of what others might believe. Truth is objective and not subject to human whim. Similarly, the moral life is quite different between creeds. Certain religions espouse violence or holy wars to achieve their ends. We believe sexual conduct must remain exclusive to a man and woman in marriage. We reject divorce. We view the core of the Good News as a Gospel of Life. Abortion is regarded as murder.

As for lighting a candle before an Oriental idol, Tertullian and various fathers of the ancient Church would regard such an act as idolatry. Even more serious, they would view the deities of the East as possibly demonic in origin. We believe in invisible spiritual realities. We cannot accept another’s point of view that is diametrically opposed to our own. We can render “human” respect to another’s traditions, and even tolerate false worship. However, we ourselves are allowed no part in it. I do not think the nuncio was fully aware of what was going on and an honest mistake was made. Why should I commit an act that is sinful and renounces my exclusive devotion to Christ?

I have no problem with dialogue. It is collaboration in another’s ritual or prayer where I have problems. Pope Benedict VI, himself, has explained that ecumenism may mean allowing each group to pray as their tradition dictates, even for a common cause like peace, but without the blending of prayers or the coerced collaboration of anyone in a ritual which they would find offensive. The same respect I would give to them I would hope they would extend to me. Religious indifferentism is regarded by the Church as one of the most grievous sins in the post-Vatican II world.

SOROJ:

Let it be noted, by the way, that it is a gross misinterpretation that Hinduism is a polytheistic faith.

FATHER JOE:

So you say, but not all Hindu teachers agree. There seems to be a movement for sure, some arguing that the various deities are really manifestations of a single God. However, the models or manifestations are still incompatible with the Triune One God of Christianity.

SOROJ:

It is, in fact, a monotheistic religion but has evolved to allow its adherents greater spiritual freedom to view God in their own way, hence the seemingly large number of deities. Think of it kind of like having a hundred email addresses but mail sent to any of them is forwarded into one main address. Dorky example, admittedly, but it’s the best I can come up with right now.

FATHER JOE:

The image I have is that of spammers, none of the addresses may be the right one. I fail to see any significant unity in such an analogy.

SOROJ:

I just want to end off by stressing that I have much respect for the Catholic faith. It is a beautiful faith, and I have many friends who are strong believers. I have much respect for what you’re doing; it takes a strong person to write about one’s opinions without cutting corners. I’m just responding as such. Best of luck with everything.

FATHER JOE:

I would never do anything to infringe upon the rights of Hindus to celebrate their faith. I also believe in dialogue and cooperation about those things in society where we find some agreement. At the same time, I am acutely aware that the God of Christianity and Judaism is a jealous God and the prohibition against “other gods” is absolute. Indeed, although the Pope seems to view the Allah of the Moslems as the same as Yahweh and the Father of Jesus, there are many critics even here under the umbrella of Abraham who have their doubts. The deity or deities of Hinduism are even further removed.

SWAMI HARIDAS:

My dear Pagan Catholic friends, who worship countless numbers of saints, images and paintings, and are therefore ignorant polytheistic idol worshippers, those who eat and hack away at the animals of God, first of all I would like to point out your extremely derogatory tone towards Hindus and Hinduism. You call us idol worshippers, fools deluding others, idol bringers and polytheists. However, did you know that Hinduism has only one God, the Lord Vishnu and all of the other gods and goddesses are simply in the Catholic term saints, devotees and worshippers of our one true Lord? We worship these idols and statues, never believing that our Gods are directly before us, but because of the symbolism, it allows us to view the Lord in our hearts, for his to dwell in our minds. And so we are as pagan and polytheistic as you are!

It is symbolism, walking around the deity (pradakshina), acknowledging that God is the essence of our lives and beyond, bowing, acknowledging our subordinace to the eternal saviour, eating food that is supposedly blessed by the Lord (prasadam) allows us to be pure and refreshed by his blessing, his blessing to break our sinful bonds and engage in spiritual service to him.

You have been completely misled.

Those two statues are not Hindu deities; they are simply decorative statues of two princesses holding flowers in their hands. It is purely a decorative element and has no religious basis whatsoever. So please do not over-exaggerate with your ignorant terms, because in a sense you are the same.

May the Lord lift the darkness from your eyes, may you be humbled by his word ( Gita ) and may you surrender onto him, he who is our father, he who is our eternal lord, and he who is ever flowing with grace, because no matter how sinful you are, there is always space for you in the abode of the Lord, all you need is a change – Hare Krishna.

FATHER JOE:

Have I not written enough about this incident? The corrective was the very cautious manner in which the Pope acted when he visited the John Paul II Cultural Center. He talked about peoples of various faiths working together for a better world. He urged that together we search for the truth, albeit knowing that objective truth and an honest exploration leads to the God of the Bible, of the saints and Thomas Aquinas, and of the Church. There was no hybrid or welcoming liturgies that would incur confusion into the minds of Christian believers.

Catholics do not give divine worship to saints. Despite protestations to the contrary, the Hindus have made no universal statement disavowing polytheism. Even if their many deities were confined by some religious revisionism to one known through many manifestations, it is no guarantee that this would be the God of the Hebrews and of the Church. The Church has seen the old pagan religions fade away, and it has seen the emergence of a new paganism. The Catholic Church is not pagan but thoroughly Christian.

I am well aware of the ten avatars of Vishnu as well as the other 330,000 supernatural beings. They are all false, from the Catholic perspective. I do not deny that some Hindus have reinterpreted their religion as monotheistic. But this is not universally the case among its teachers and certainly not the situation among individual practitioners. Your treatment of images goes way beyond Catholic veneration. Trying to equate Catholicism with Hinduism will not work and a number of theologians and Catholic writers have faced censure from the Holy See for trying to do so. You are free to follow your beliefs; that was never in question. The concern of the post is that we as Catholics are not on the same page about faith and God. Christians are forbidden to take part in such foreign worship. Catholics cannot even receive communion in a non-Catholic church. We might sing hymns, but are generally forbidden to formally participate in the ritual of another denomination. Eating food that is supposedly blessed by a non-Christian deity was condemned by the early Christians fathers, even though the poor were attracted to the free meat and bread offered to a false god. The pagans were often good people. But, Christianity is not tolerant of false religions. Ecumenism means better mutual understanding, working for common objectives in society, but it does not mean anything more than “human” respect and it certainly does not mean any kind of religious relativism.

The statues are elements of Hindu iconography if nothing else, and lighting candles before them is highly questionable. One person suggested that the two princesses holding flowers were the two daughters of Vishnu, the head deity. I do not propose to be an expert in Hindu theology, but you cannot speak for a worldwide Hinduism which varies greatly from place to place and from teacher to teacher. Further, as a priest, I am somewhat well informed about Catholic Christianity and find your views in this regard both juvenile and inaccurate.

Worship your one or thousands of gods; that is your business. But do not expect me to say that such is okay for Catholics. It is not!

Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life!

MICHAEL:

Swami, your remarks typify all of the ignorant hard headed non-Catholics that don’t have a clue. Wait until you’re on your death bed. You’ll be calling on all kinds of people both dead and alive and YES, even some Catholic saints, I’ll bet.

You’re gonna find out how wrong you are. In the meantime, I would suggest that you keep quiet and stop basing your opinions and thoughts on conjecture. Do yourself a favor and read the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church from cover to cover TWICE, if you’re sincere about learning. Then you’ll have reason to understand why true Catholics do what we do and believe what we believe in

Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life!

ABAR!

MELBOURNE:

I don’t understand what the fuss is about. Both religions have pagan influences in how they Worship God. Even the words Worship, Sacrifice, Goddess have pagan origins. Christians give money in sacrifice; pagans kill animals to appease their God. Catholics have placed Mary as a Goddess of Virginity just as the Romans placed Venus as a Goddess of Love. Roman mythology has been mixed up with Gods words. They are all pagan religions. Fear of honoring the wrong god is just superstitious. God, your Father, judges you on your character, not on your beliefs.

FATHER JOE:

There are certain commonalities between religions as a whole, but that does not mean Christianity is in any way paganized. Worship and Sacrifice have unique definitions for Christians, albeit derived from the earlier Jewish usage. We worship the one true God and all worship must be focused upon God. The Jews sacrificed grain and animals, Catholics offer the unbloody offering of Jesus Christ behind the elements of bread and wine that are transformed into his body and blood. Neither the Bible nor the living tradition substantiates your claims. The quality of a man’s character will not save you. False belief or the worship of demons will not save you. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus alone is Savior and Lord: he is the Way and the Truth and the Life. Catholics do not regard Mary as a goddess; she is a human creature like the rest of us, but specially chosen and blessed by God.

VISHNU:

Dear Father, it has been a long time since you have written a post like this. I am a Hindu, so what? I’ve been to church, be it RC (Roman Catholic), LC (Latin), Pentecostal or whatever. And each of these guys says that they are the real Christian. Again, I don’t care about that too. For me, they are all Christians and believe in Yeshua.

I believe that Jesus is one of the saviors and a lord, but don’t believe that he is the sole path to eternity. I am sure there are many other ways, too.

I wasn’t here for that. Actually, the picture there was just a sculpture and had nothing to do with so-called pagan culture and god. And lighting a lamp is almost like cutting a ribbon, stating that something has started. And yes, it is the Indian way.

Don’t take it to the heart dear, but Christians in India do light lamps (yes, similar oil lamps with a cross on the top) and candles in front of Jesus.

Father I have some serious doubts. Please do contact me in the email address… just some doubts regarding Christianity.

FATHER JOE:

The archbishop may have been similarly deceived, but it is not “just a statue” but has symbolic value for Hinduism and the lighting of a candle is a ritual gesture. Jesus is the Savior. Apart from Christ, there is only condemnation. Jesus tells us in John 14 that “no one comes to the Father, but through me.” Jesus is NOT one deity or “savior” among many. He is the Lord. His is the saving name.

PJ JOHNSON:

It seems as if this is a very old thread at this point so I’m a bit reluctant to comment on it, but I’m a Catholic Ph.D. student in South Asian religions and the subject is of personal and professional interest to me particularly when I am doing fieldwork in India.

If you have interlibrary loan access you might want to look at the Indian bishops’ “Guidelines for Interreligious Dialogue” (Guidelines for Interreligious Dialogue. New Delhi: CBCI Centre, 1989). It deals with many of the issues treated in this discussion, such as the nature of Indian religions (polytheism vs. monotheism, the role of images, and so forth), and sets norms for interfaith worship services involving Catholics and Hindus.

My interpretation of the document is that the bishops established individual prudential judgment as the ultimate arbiter of what is licit involvement with non-Christian religions, with just a handful of exceptions – potential scandal given to the non-Christian party (avoiding scandal to the Christian party is contemplated but rejected as a guiding principle), and any guidelines and norms that are subsequently established by one’s diocese to limit the application of individual conscience. The norms specifically permit invoking the Christian god under Hindu names, adapting Indian religious symbols to private Christian religious use as part of inculturation, limited participation in Hindu puja, and a demeanor of worship at non-Christian religious sites. You may or may not be familiar with Cardinal Dias lighting a lamp for Ganesha in the 1990s, but it was a similar situation to the nuncio’s action at the JPII Center operating within the Indian guidelines. More recently, St. Philomena’s in Mysore illuminated itself (that is, turned on its lights) for the Hindu festival Dusshera.

http://www.ucanews.com/2009/09/11/priests-divided-over-government-move-for-inclusive-hindu-festival/

This is of course an Indian document, but from my own limited perspective, I think it’s likely that the Holy See, apostolic nuncios such as Pietro Sambi, and others in the Church involved in comparative theology and interfaith dialogue are aware of the Indian norms and find them licit, and something like the same norms are the de facto ones applied throughout the church. In other words, I don’t think the nuncio was acting in ignorance, but within norms for inter-religious dialogue that are generally accepted by the magisterium. If you could establish out of recent magisterial documents that this is not the case, I would appreciate knowing about it.

FATHER JOE:

When the Pope encountered the interfaith groups in the United States, he was very careful not to say or do anything that might compromise on this issue. We can work together in a common pursuit of the truth but the Pope is fearless in knowing that the claims of Catholicism reflect objective truth and reality. Compromises similar to a few you have mentioned have been rightfully criticized and I suspect Pope Benedict will slowly bring correctives to the situation. I know that the American bishops have been admonished on elements of their document on homosexuality (forcing a rewrite) and ICEL translations formerly approved by the USCCB were deemed as heretical by the Vatican. I suspect the Indian bishops and others are also fallible. This is more than a matter of policy or Church rules, but of the Decalogue and Divine Revelation.

ROY:

READ DUET. 4:23-25 – Be careful, therefore, lest you forget the covenant which the LORD, your God, has made with you, and fashion for yourselves against his command an idol in any form whatsoever. For the LORD, your God, is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

READ DUET. 5:7-8 – You shall not have other gods beside me. You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth.

READ DUET. 6:14-15 – You shall not go after other gods, any of the gods of the surrounding peoples— for the LORD, your God who is in your midst, is a passionate God—lest the anger of the LORD, your God, flare up against you and he destroy you from upon the land.

FATHER JOE:

This does not speak to the change in the economy of images because of the incarnation. You are simply citing the Old Testament and I applied the full quotations. Such is in the Catholic Bible and represents no challenge to the Catholic faith.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Church, Ecumenism, Faith, Jesus, Religion, Salvation | Comments Off on Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 2

Arguing with a Crazy Man

Posted on May 21, 2007 by Father Joe

LINK: False Worship at John Paul II Cultural Center?

LINK: Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 1

JOHN:

You’re all morons!

FATHER JOE:

Well, starting a discussion that way certainly adds no points to your argument. You are saying that any religion that makes absolute truth claims can have its adherents ridiculed and mocked. Sorry, all you do is immediately show your irrational bigotry. Catholics and other Christians would take exception to other religions, maybe even see spiritual hazards, but hopefully we would not ridicule their believers as “morons.”

JOHN:

All religions are the same— period!

FATHER JOE:

This statement is so ignorant; I am not sure where to begin. Are you saying that all truth is relative? No, obviously not, because you are starting off by criticizing Catholic doctrine which condemns the heresy of “religious indifferentism.” Further, if all religions are the same (with conflicting truth claims), then what you seem to be saying is that all religions are equally false. This is also off the mark because Catholic Christianity puts much store into such things as natural law. In other words, even if you disagree with our faith claims, there are certain assumptions from the natural order that must be held unless you somehow reject objective reality. Certain religions reject such reality as illusion and thus, even from an atheist’s perspective, would probably be further removed from the truth.

JOHN:

Christians have been misled purposely.

FATHER JOE:

We have? By whom? Sorry, the history of salvation history shows a clear progression from Judaism to Christianity. You are wrong about this. We believe that the Holy Spirit has safeguarded the Magisterium of the Church and the inspiration and canonical selection of her Scriptures.

JOHN:

The word God in the old Geneva Bible was Elohim.

FATHER JOE:

Why are we talking about a Protestant bible that was not fully published until 1560? The Catholic Church resolved the issue of the biblical canon in 393 AD!

JOHN:

Elohim… meant male/female and also meant more than one! That means that God was Gods! And any true Jewish man will confirm this.

FATHER JOE:

No true Jew will confirm any form of polytheism. Hebrew did not capitalize the word (how would it) and this has led to your misinterpretation that it can refer to many gods. The word was sometimes substituted for the more formal YAHWEH. However, in either case, it is a reference to the one God of Abraham. There is nothing about combined gender as God is neither male nor female. He is an infinitely perfect spirit. Nevertheless, the Scriptures do suggest that there is something significant about the role of groom and father in terms of his revelation to men.

Wikepedia states: “Note that contrary to what is sometimes assumed, the word Eloah (אלוה) is quite definitely not feminine in form in the Hebrew language (and does not have feminine grammatical gender in its occurrences in the Bible).” Further, any royal plural does not signify multiple gods but is used as in the same manner as the royal and papal “we.”

JOHN:

So logic dictates that anytime you see God in the Bible it actually is Elohim or Gods!

FATHER JOE:

There is nothing at all logical about it.

JOHN:

Makes sense when you rationally look at Genesis: “….and let us make man in our own image.” If it were one “Old Man in the Sky,” then why the plural?

FATHER JOE:

Again, this is merely a linguistic use of the ROYAL PLURAL. The entity is still singular. Your literal fundamentalism that runs against the grain of both ancient Jewish and Christian teaching is indeed quite ridiculous. Note also that Catholics believe in a Trinity = one divine nature but three divine persons. Jews would simply stress the single godhead.

JOHN:

Angels had nothing to do with the fashioning of man, only God. So reason dictates (not religious dogma or lies) that there were more than one.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, angels perform no demiurge function. But you display no logical reason. I am tempted to call you the liar, but suspect that you are merely ignorant and incompetent.

JOHN:

In the Old Testament (Torah… the Old Testament is nothing more than the Torah with a different name), terms this to mean that Gods are everywhere in the Bible and you don’t know what God or Gods were really good and which ones were jerks!!!

FATHER JOE:

Now you have become incomprehensible and resort again to bigoted name-calling. Of course, even here you make factual mistakes. The Torah is part of the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, but is not the entire Old Testament. The Torah is five books: 1. Genesis; 2. Exodus; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; and 5. Deuteronomy. There are 46 books in the Catholic Old Testament.

JOHN:

Also, it makes sense were somewhere later (can’t remember the Scripture) when Jesus says in the New Testament that “my God is not your God…” to the Jews.

FATHER JOE:

Huh? Like where does he say this? Do you make up everything you ramble about? The scene is just the opposite from how you describe it. The text is John 20:17 where the Risen Lord speaks to Mary Magdalene: “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” We hear echoes of Ruth 1:16-17 in the Old Testament:

But Ruth said, “Do not press me to go back and abandon you! Wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people and your God, my God. Where you die I will die, and there be buried. May the LORD do thus to me, and more, if even death separates me from you!”

JOHN:

In two terms this means one… they are not actually worshipping God but Satan since they are money driven whore mongers and they could actually worship a whole totally different God!!

FATHER JOE:

Now you will offer exegesis on made-up verses? Pleeeease! Jesus is the one who is accused of healing with the power of demons, a false charge and a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The God of the Jews and that of the Christians is the same.

JOHN:

Some Jewish text clearly states (once again, ask an honest Jewish guy, probably not a brainwashed orthodox one but a more secular one) that Leviathan was an old Babylonian god worshipped by Jews in that time period and still to this day.

FATHER JOE:

You are willing to mock Jews, too? If you ask either an informed orthodox or a reformed Jew, he or she would tell you that your ideas are confused and erroneous. We do not worship the pagan deities or the false religion of ancient Babylon.

JOHN:

Look, it all boils down to either you use love, compassion, caring and understanding, and sometimes a little tough love or you wanna burn everyone, kill in the name of an unknowable God, yada, yada, yada… there are two philosophies plain and simple.

FATHER JOE:

What really matters is that the true God of the Jews has revealed his face in Jesus Christ. Divine mercy and divine justice are hallmarks of this revelation.

JOHN:

Take your pick. I will take the Jesus-Buddha-Krishna-Tamuz pick and say live and let live. Give some tough love when someone needs it. Don’t pee on my door step and I won’t pee on yours!

FATHER JOE:

Jesus has nothing to do with false prophets or pagan gods. Idol worship as practiced by pagans was condemned by the Jews. Pagan worship is condemned in the New Testament. The early Church fathers saw the pagan gods as demons in disguise. Christianity and Judaism are not tolerant of polytheism and the false worship to which you subscribe. You applaud contradictions and, despite professions to logic, have embraced irrationality.

JOHN:

Be nice people and that’s it— stop all the debate and squabble.

FATHER JOE:

Look who is talking! You called us “morons” and “jerks”!

JOHN:

You’re caught up in the ritual and literal translation of things instead of the real meat of the point!!! Be nice!!!

FATHER JOE:

You are the one who has missed the whole point. Being nice and being saved are different things.

JOHN:

Grow up and be honest with yourselves. Work on you and don’t worry about your neighbor!

FATHER JOE:

Charity and the mandate of the Gospel demand that we proclaim the Good News. We must care for our neighbor. You would have us renege on the saving message of Jesus Christ. Who are you to tell us our faith? What nerve!

JOHN:

Stop the nonsense; everyone has the same value and worth.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, human dignity and personhood is incommensurate, but this is a wholly different matter than religious faith. Not all religions are the same. Some are closer to the truth and others are dead wrong. Yours is utterly incomprehensible.

JOHN:

No one person should make more money than anyone else. Everyone in the world is important, everyone! In every second of everyday!!!

FATHER JOE:

What are you now, a communist? I say this as a poor priest.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Church, Ecumenism, Evangelization, Faith, God, Jesus, Religion | Comments Off on Arguing with a Crazy Man

Arguing with a Gnostic Fake Bishop

Posted on May 20, 2007 by Father Joe

LINK: False Worship at John Paul II Cultural Center?

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN: (Fort Worth Texas USA)

You are insulting the legacy of St. John Paul the Great…

He did far more loving actions than the Bishop in the photo!!!!

Traditionalists of EXTREMEISM are being used by demonic forces as LIBERALIST…

The darkness will use ANY vehicle, even PIOUSness to wound the DIVINE HEART of JESUS…

WATCH OUT PEOPLE!!!!

FATHER JOE:

Bishop Kevin Vann is the genuine Bishop of Fort Worth, Texas. You sir, are an imposter!

The post here was never meant to tarnish the late Pope’s reputation. The problem is that mistakes have sometimes been made that cannot be easily excused. Christians can have no part in pagan prayer and worship. That is the long and short of it.

This so-called “bishop” feels differently, Bishop Richard St. John is a faker. Posting here under the guise of a Catholic bishop shows the depth of his deceit. He is nothing of the kind!

Who is he?

He writes this at an interfaith site:

His defective apostolic pedigree…

“We have a lot in common. I was communicating with the U.G.C. (Universal Gnostic) but I haven’t the cash to take all the lessons. We both are bishops from +Lewis K. who I’ve known for many years. I also know some other Gnostic Prelates: +Hoeller and +Rosamonde Miller. I also have been a Bishop in +Michael Bertiauxs Church.”

His heretical Gnosticism and occult involvement…

“I’m more on the “catholic side” of Gnosticism. I love comparative religion, metaphysics, shamanism, Wicca, and psychic development.”

He is unemployed but should go out and get a job…

“At this time I don’t have an active pastoral ministry or sacramental apostolate.”

He sits around all day and plays on the computer…

“I enjoy e-mail or snail mail with other kindred souls who Spirit brings upon my path.”

He is very gay…

“I’m going through a lot of changes right now regarding work etc. I’m a single gay guy, who is a Super-Uncle of my sis: 5 kids and one great-niece!!!”

He uses the Wiccan closure…

“Blessed Be.”

What does the utterly heretical Universal Gnostic Church says about itself and him? He is aligned with an occult group that calls itself the Universal Gnostic Fellowship. It claims to trace its apostolic lineage not simply to Jesus but to Adam. They claim their holy orders were initiated by a host of Gnostic masters, including Mary Magdalene. While they claim a doctrine of the one, it is really a form of pantheism where everything is seen as divine. They argue that Old Testament prophets and Christ were occult shamans or witch-doctors. They reject all other doctrines. This group is not really even Christian, but is pagan in nature. Instead of a unique creation, they claim that all people are merely fractured bits and pieces of the divine. They repudiate, absolutely, the following teachings: “original sin, damnation, hellfire, virgin birth, tithing, and “others whose purpose is to subjugate the masses for the benefit the priesthood.” They subscribe to a long list of sacraments, some quite peculiar and others redefined, like “Child birthing, Naming, Coming of Age, Initiation, Manhood, Womanhood, Handfasting, Exorcism, Elderhood, and Burial of the Dead.”

They impose their counterfeit ministries upon the Ordinate and the Episcopate. Ordination to the Ordinate is conferred upon qualified candidates regardless of age, class, race, color, religious preference, creed, gender or sexual orientation. Just as we apparently saw at the JPII Center, they suffer from a chronic syncretism with deacons, ministers, priests, rabbis, swamis, canons, deacons, deans, deaconesses, and priestesses.

WE SHOULD INDEED BE ALERT, THIS MAN IS NO BISHOP AND APPARENTLY NOT A CHRISTIAN! HE IS PLAYING AT BISHOP AND WOULD LEAD SIMPLE PEOPLE ASTRAY! IF HE WAS EVER A CHRISTIAN, HE IS NOW A GENUINE HERETIC! THERE IS NO GENTLE WAY TO RESPOND TO HIS COMMENT.

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN:

Father Joe, I AM NOT nor EVER said I was the ROMAN Bishop of Fort Worth or anywhere…. I am not an imposter/fake or phony anything. I am one of the most honest/kind/loving/sweet-natured/unselfish people you could EVER meet. I AM in Fort Worth, born here. I AM a valid consecrated prelate in the apostolic succession (from Roman-Greek-Russian-Coptic-Armenian-Melkite-Atiochian-Anglican-Utrech). The Holy See/Holy Father whom I revere, upon studying/knowing of me would 100% respect me as a real/valid/legitimate apostolic bishop…..PERIOD! Our Divine Lord said not to bear false witness so you either read into my email what you humanly wanted (no sin) or you sinned against the Holy Ghost against my holy orders…. mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

NOT ROMAN— with all humility and reverence to His Holiness Benedict 16, Supreme Pontiff.

FATHER JOE:

You sir, in my reckoning are not even a true Christian. That makes any claim to being a bishop a sham. Note that you speak of yourself as “the most honest/kind/loving/sweet-natured/unselfish people you could EVER meet.” Ah, evidently humility is NOT one of your virtues, either. The Church you describe does not really exist; it is a bogus as you are. Pope John Paul II would have nothing to do with you. Indeed, from the way you express yourself, I am becoming concerned that you might not be quite well. If you had “all” humility and reverence to the Pope, you would put away your charade and seek membership in the Catholic faith. As things stand, you are not Roman, not Catholic, not Christian, and not a true bishop. You belong to an occult sect that only masquerades as Christian. Even genuine Orthodox churches do not recognize you or your so-called apostolic orders. I will try not to laugh. I will offer prayer for your healing instead.

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN:

Reverend Father, I posted via your reply without having scrolled down to read all you said.

John Paul received the marking on the forehead of Shiva in India (PHOTO on INTERNET).

John Paul KISSED the KORAN!!!

John Paul received the blessing of VOUDON PRIESTS or Hougans in AFRICA.

JOHN PAUL let Dali Lama priests put statue of BUDDAH on the TABERNACLE in ASSISI.

I AM NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would NEVER disrespect your priesthood!!!

YOU pulled a FBI search on me like a Gestapo Nazi.

I AM not unemployed… thank you!

I have a real job and work my ass off!

I don’t use my holy orders to put a roof over my head.

I live in the REAL WORLD, not a damn rectory with a pious Irish lady cleaning my undies.

I AM a CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN. I profess in “humiltas” the Blessed Trinity and The DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST ONLY. I respect other faiths… you don’t! JOHN PAUL did. I AM GAY….so are thousands of Roman laity, priests, religious, bishops, cardinals and many popes (some were adulterous murderous [deleted] AND STRAIGHT!!!!) You can insult me, slander me, and hate me; but you have INSULTED THE HOLY GHOST— Third Person of The Divine and Blessed TRINITY. You have insulted the dignity of my holy order’s witch have nothing to do with so-called heresy/personal sin/lack of JOB. YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING about ME. You jumped in the cesspool of SATAN and drank it up. YOU ARE A REAL PRIEST but as a human you have shown your feet of clay! Oh how Glorious the Precious Blood of Our Divine Lord Incarnate on Calvary that froggives ME and YOU. May the Divine Mercy heal your HATRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! St. Therese the Little Flower, “ora pro nobis.” St. Padre Pio, “ora pro nobis.” Sancta Maria Mater Dei, “ora pro nobis.” Saint John Paul, “ora pro nobis.” + Richard Saint John baptized Roman with reverence to His Holiness Benedict.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, Pope John Paul II was very compassionate to those who should have been disciplined for making liturgical blunders. The bird poop was an error not orchestrated. The Koran kiss was honor to the givers, not to the gift. The pagan priests gave a blessing on their own initiative. The Buddha statue was a disgrace that Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) was quite upset about in Assisi. No one wanted to give offence, but the idol should have been thrown to the grown and crushed underfoot.

What FBI search? You are being paranoid. Everything I posted, you have already shared “yourself” on the Internet! You say you do not disrespect my priesthood but you call me a Nazi and make up a fictional cleaning woman in my rectory. I wash my own clothes at Holy Spirit! And by the way, being a REAL priest is being in the REAL world. You are a weekend bishop who treats religion like a hobby. You are into the occult and cannot claim to be a true Christian or Catholic. Ours is a jealous God. You cannot worship the idols of demons and honor Jesus.

You more than respect other faiths— you fully embrace them, no matter how incompatible with Christianity.

Like so many active gays you cannot speak about your disorientation without a vulgar slur.

I see a contradiction here. You speak of your “holy order’s witch” but contend that I am the one who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Pleeease, I do not know what “spirit” moves you, but it is not the Advocate sent by Christ!

All I know about you is what you broadcast to the world, and in that respect, the “cesspool of Satan” is yours.

May your “frog” give you forgiveness, but I prefer my reconciliation with God. I suspect the saints pity you.

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN:

I LIVE in FORT WORTH….THANK YOU— BORN HERE, WORK HERE AND my ADDRESS is SUNSET ROAD, FORT WORTH. GET YOUR FACTS OF HATRED STRAIGHT! LYING/FALSE WITNESS is A MORTAL SIN! (St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism) MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MAXIMA CULPA— ohhhh if you’re a post Vat. 2 Kumbaya-Priest, that means “through my fault, through my fault, through my grievous fault!!!!!!” That bishop of the Roman diocese has a priest at my baptismal parish that is more liberal than me. I’ve gone to his Mass (MESS) and wanted to cry cause of what’s going on there ain’t no HOLY SACRIFICE of the MASS. SO GO THROW STONES in your own Roman backyard, padre!

FATHER JOE: Without real holy orders any celebration you give is no Eucharist. Even a liberal priest with the right intention can say Mass and forgive sins. You cannot do this much. You are just playing dress-up. As for the facts, I simply posted what you told everyone.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Ecumenism, Faith, God, Jesus, Morality, Pope, Priests, Sacraments, Salvation, Sin | Comments Off on Arguing with a Gnostic Fake Bishop

Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 1

Posted on May 19, 2007 by Father Joe

LINK: False Worship at John Paul II Cultural Center?

LINK: Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 2

There were many comments in the discussion regarding charges of false worship by a Vatican official at the John Paul II Cultural Center. While I also had questions, and viewed the lighting of the Hindu religious candle as a misstep, it was and is my conviction that the charges from critics are ridiculous. Catholicism does not subscribe to religious indifferentism. However, the Church in the modern world is dedicated to mutual understanding and social cooperation for purposes of justice and peace. We have to share the world in which we live. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the good works of brothers and sisters from other faith traditions and philosophies of life.

As I look over the posted picture again this morning, there are tears in my eyes. I have to think that maybe the archbishop was not aware of the religious significance of the candle-lighting. It could be that they imposed upon him without warning to light it and he did so without giving the action sufficient reflection. Given tension and recent hostilities of Hindus toward Catholics in places like India, the archbishop may also have found himself with a no win situation. While such events as this are rarely reported in the American press, they constitute headline news back in Hindu countries. The reverberations for refusing to light the candle would have been colossal. It should have been made clear what the archbishop could and could not do as a Catholic clergyman. Guidelines preventing the candle-lighting should have been contracted in the use of the JP II Center.

[It is worthy of note that Pope Benedict XVI would also meet with non-Christian religious leaders at the center when he came to the U.S. His words were very carefully chosen to emphasize religious dialogue for purposes of social harmony and to better society. There was nothing that sacrificed the unique salvific significance of Christ and the truths taught and passed on by Catholic Christianity. Many of us saw this event as an attempt to correct and heal any wound of confusion opened by the earlier event.]

Here is my blog discussion record, good, bad and confused, of those who commented on the pictures that went viral in the (unfortunately) somewhat unforgiving religious world.

SHARON:

Father is it possible that the archbishop didn’t understand the significance of the lamp? Is it possible that you are overestimating the significance of the lamp? Maybe you should give the archbishop some feedback.

FATHER JOE:

I thought about that possibility too, and yet Catholicism is quite restrictive and clear about such matters. Remember, Catholics cannot even engage “actively” but only “passively” in the Sunday worship of Protestants. Hymn singing is permitted, with reservations, but many worship elements and Holy Communion are forbidden to Catholics. Further, such participation does not fulfill one’s holy day obligation or duty. I am just a poor priest in a small parish. The archbishop represents the Holy See and has had special training in the foreign service of the Church. He should know better than me what is right and wrong. Catholics light candles as well, and the votive lights symbolize our prayer intentions. We also have the vigil light before the reserved sacrament of the Eucharist and the Easter or Paschal Candle. Catholics know the value and place of candles and fire in worship. The archbishop would be the first to appreciate such things. That is why I am pained and befuddled by it all.

CATHOLIC WRITER:

Hi Father Joe, if Catholics worship one God in the Holy Trinity, and the Hindus worship one God in Brahma, isn’t it common sense that both are worshipping the same God, but in different ways? (Curious)

FATHER JOE:

The problem is the presumption of monotheism that you make. Except for certain modern Hindu apologists who argue that all the Hindu deities are expression of a single one; Hinduism is traditionally regarded as a polytheistic religion. In other words, they are not worshipping ONE god but many gods. This is usually their understanding as well. The Trinity is quite different. Catholics believe that there is ONE divine nature (one God) but three divine Persons. While the mythology is quite different, the multiple gods of Hinduism is similar to the ancient pagan gods of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Tertullian and others in the early Church claimed that these false gods had substance and were in actuality, demons. Christians were warned, even in the Bible, that they should not eat of the food offered to idols, to the demons.

The Jewish Decalogue forbids the fashioning and worshipping of idols. Catholics use statues to remember Jesus, Mary, Joseph and other saints. But we do not worship them as idols. However, the Hindu usage of statues is indeed the kind of idolatry condemned by the commandments given to Moses.

Are you beginning to see why this is a pretty big deal and a source of growing embarrassment and scandal?

HELEN:

Right or wrong, “Catholicism is quite restrictive” is the reason for your pain. That much is clear. Believing as you do, this must upset you a lot.

You mentioned that lighting the lamp had different meanings at different times. I sincerely hope that in this instance its meaning is something that does not compromise Christian faith in one God. Protestants share the belief of one God in three Persons with Catholics. That is one thing we do not debate.

CATHOLIC WRITER:

Hi Father Joe, I see what you mean. Based on the interreligious dialogue that’s taken place in my country between representatives of various religions, I’ve always understood Hinduism to be monotheistic with the other deities to be manifestations of Brahman, while the deities are given the same kind of respect that Catholics give to saints. Like some Catholics mistakenly turn to worshipping saints, some Hindus mistakenly turn to worshipping these deities, but these should not be seen as what the religion is really about. God bless.

BEE:

Stay away from those wacko conservatives like the “catholic” cavemen. Lighten up. If Jesus were here he wouldn’t be filled with righteous anger at someone lighting a candle and dialoging with pagans. Surely St. Paul probably reached out amongst similar sorts of things even as he upheld the truth of Christ. Beware wrath and a lack of charity— surely more insidious then a misstep in lighting a candle.

FATHER JOE:

Dialogue is fine by me, but the question is false worship. You suggest that St. Paul would not be concerned, and yet he definitely condemned idolatry. Remember, ours is a jealous God.

4HISCHURCH:

I’ve been reading about the alleged apparitions at Damascus in Syria (apparently approved by the local bishop— I stay away from those that aren’t). The main message there seems to be one of unity (especially between Catholics and Orthodox.) Jesus is reported to have said, “Tell my children, it is from them I ask unity. I will not accept it from those who are only acting; pretending they are working for unity.” When I read your post about the archbishop that was the first thing I thought of— pretending to be working for unity instead of working for true unity.

LAURA:

Remember, Sr. Lucia of Fatima told us not to wait for the bishops to lead us in lives of prayer and mortification. These types of gross errors are so commonplace now. The sad part is that so many Catholics are so poorly catechized that they wouldn’t even be able to tell you why the actions of the Bishop were scandalous. I weep with for my children who have such reckless shepherds.

WENDY:

AMEN, Father. It seems to me that some folks “just ain’t gettin’ it.” This is some serious stuff. Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt? But, come on, he’s an Archbishop for crying out loud! I would think that he would be more knowledgeable than us lay folk. If not, I’m truly scared!

MARTHA:

Which bishops can we trust?

CAROL:

Father Joe, Ugh, I had hoped this Nuncio would avoid the “Be nice, don’t litter” phenomenon that has stolen our religion. You ask whether he realizes he is paying homage to a false god. “Be nice and don’t litter” is borne from the violations of the first and second commandments— priests and bishops who want the flock to adore them. They place the importance of people loving them above everything else, including the vocation of salvation of humanity.

Who among us sits in the pews and knows the last time words were said to provoke the people in line to get the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ to go to confession and wipe their souls of their sins? If they’re unaware that their path has taken this earth into a spiritual tailspin, then they are perishing. The vocation of priesthood is a spiritual fatherhood. The photo of a papal nuncio lighting a candle to pay homage to a false god is about as sane as a mother and father who set up false images and pay homage to them before they tuck their kids into bed. Take another look at the picture (previous post)— he’s laying the salvation of Christ’s people at the foot of a false god and everyone in the picture is as happy as a lark— spiritual insanity!

“Which bishops can we trust?” A handful, perhaps a dozen, like + Vasa, + Bruskewitz, + Chaput, + Burke, to name a few.

MATTHEW:

Although I don’t agree with everything Fr. Malachi Martin said, he was right concerning the actions of certain bishops and equating it with unbelief. How can someone do something like this and be a believer of the Gospel? I will pray that the Archbishop is stupid rather than a baptized pagan.

FATHER RICHARD:

St. Teresa said, “I do not understand the fears of certain persons, who say, “The devil, the devil, so long as we can say, God, God, and make Satan tremble.” Relax; the bishop did the right thing. If he had refused to light the candle he would have been no different than those people who cry the devil, the devil— as you and many of your readers sadly sometimes do. God bless.

FATHER JOE:

Dear Father Richard, I would tend to give the benefit of a doubt to the nuncio, however, it is possible that he made a mistake. I believe he is fully Catholic and that there was no intent, whatsoever, on his part to do something wrong. I would not want to say that he did nothing “inadvertently” wrong, as the lighting of a candle in certain instances signifies “worship” for the Hindus. The Hindu deities in my estimation are false and if they have any real distinct existence it would seem likely they are demonic. Such an attitude was reflected in the early Church to the pagan gods and I see no reason to second-guess their interpretation. You seem to infer upon me a level of anxiety about Satan’s power that I do not in fact have. I may mention him from time to time, particularly in mockery and humor, but I fully trust the power of Jesus Christ to vanquish evil. As my departed father once said to me, the devil cannot stand humor. You seem to render me, a fellow priest, a small slight by your comment, but you are free to have your own opinion about such things and even about me.

I see from your website that you are part of the Charismatic renewal and have a healing ministry. I will offer a prayer for you and your ministry that many will come to know both spiritual and physical healing through the Lord working in you. The priest who baptized me also had a healing ministry and Father John Lubey regularly prayed over people who would then rest in the Spirit. He was a gentle and good man whom I miss very much. Christ’s peace with you always.

AGNES:

Dear Fr. Joe, I feel a mixture of emotions when I see what this bishop is doing, mostly a deep sadness. Really, he is betraying Jesus? He is a shepherd who is supposed to be guarding and leading his sheep towards our Savior. How are his flock supposed to react-follow him? I believe totally in love of neighbor, and the Jewish and Muslim faiths certainly worship one God as we do, and we owe a great respect to them, even though we have differences. But I am not afraid to say this, Hinduism is dangerous and the worship of false gods is totally against our faith. Please be wise, our very souls are at risk. I live in England and our faith is being battered, please proclaim Jesus as our only Lord and Savior. May God bless you all.

STEPHEN:

It is hard for me to tell if the Archbishop really knew that he was lighting a candle for idols. Maybe the Archbishop didn’t know. From looking at the picture, the candle looks kind of funny, but it does not appear to be idolatrous. In the bottom picture, there are two dark forms on the right and the left that are hard for me to see that could be some kind of statues. If they are statues, he probably did not recognize them as idols. Some idols seem like harmless statues unless you have been educated as to what they really are. His intention could have been limited to the lighting of a candle, not actually performing an act of worship. At best, this is a case of ignorance coupled with poor judgment. At worse, this is a case of go along to get along idolatry. (If you think about it, it is a form of double idolatry.)

JOAN:

Wouldn’t it be prudent to request a private audience with the Papal Nuncio and ask him privately, telling him of your concerns, before making this information, together with your opinions, known to the public? We desperately need unity in the Magisterial teachings of the Church. I have not looked back at your previous blogs, but did you let your readers know that the Papal Nuncio, in union with the Bishops of the United States, re-consecrated the United States of America to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, on November 11, 2006. Are we not a Church of Unity in truth and love?

FATHER JOE:

Dear Joan, I hear what you say, but this is not a general news blog. The pictures from the interfaith group were online and other blogs were already reporting about the event at the JP II Cultural Center. I posted about it as a “Johnny Come Lately” with important questions, and as I have said, feel that some mistake must have been made. Never did I suggest that the archbishop was intending to offer false worship. I would distance myself as a Catholic priest from any comments that suggested otherwise. My concern is the “sign” value of the picture and maybe whether or not it was prudent to participate. The questions that Christians are entitled to ask are as follows: What actually did happen? And, how do we resolve the subsequent scandal? I am a pretty small fish to tell the archbishop his business and I am sure that some response will be forthcoming without my intervention. In any case, the scandal was not my doing and any resolution will have to be accomplished in the public arena. If you think I am not charitable you should visit some of the Traditionalist Catholic and Protestant anti-Catholic sites. My remarks were very tame and non-committal by comparison. As of right now, I am positing the whole event as an error of some sort. I could not agree with another priest who suggested that it was okay to light such a lamp and that this should be a non-issue for Christians. But, that is my opinion.

As for the re-consecration of the U.S. to the Immaculate Heart, I said nothing about it because, frankly, I heard nothing about it until now. But, as I said, I do not doubt the archbishop’s Catholic faith. I am sure he is a faithful son of the Church. It is only this particular event with the Indian lamp that puzzles me.

Thank you for visiting the Blog and may the good Lord continue to bless you and your family.

ELLEN:

The real issue is the JPII Center. They are the hosts. It is their responsibility. If they had been on the job, this wouldn’t have happened.

FATHER JOE:

Point well taken!

ATHANSIUS:

“The Brahmins eat sumptuous meals to the sound of drums, and make the ignorant believe that the gods are banqueting. When they are in need of any supplies, and even before, they give out to the people that the gods are angry because the things they have asked for have not been sent, and that if the people do not take care, the gods will punish them by slaughter, disease, and the assaults of the devils. And the poor ignorant creatures, with the fear of the gods before them, obey them implicitly. These Brahmins have barely a tincture of literature, but they make up for their poverty in learning by cunning and malice. Those who belong to these parts are very indignant with me for exposing their tricks. Whenever they talk to me with no one by to hear them they acknowledge that they have no other patrimony but the idols, by their lies about which they procure their support from the people. They say that I, poor creature as I am, know more than all of them put together.”

“They often send me a civil message and presents, and make a great complaint when I send them all back again. Their object is to bribe me to connive at their evil deeds. So they declare that they are convinced that there is only one God, and that they will pray to Him for me. And I, to return the favor, answer whatever occurs to me, and then lay bare, as far as I can, to the ignorant people whose blind superstitions have made them their slaves, their imposture and tricks, and this has induced many to leave the worship of the false gods, and eagerly become Christians. If it were not for the opposition of the Brahmins, we should have them all embracing the religion of Jesus Christ.”

“The heathen inhabitants of the country are commonly ignorant of letters, but by no means ignorant of wickedness. All the time I have been here in this country, I have only converted one Brahmin, a virtuous young man, who has now undertaken to teach the Catechism to children. As I go through the Christian villages, I often pass by the temples of the Brahmins, which they call pagodas. One day lately, I happened to enter a pagoda where there were about two hundred of them, and most of them came to meet me. We had a long conversation, after which I asked them what their gods enjoined them in order to obtain the life of the blessed. There was a long discussion amongst them as to who should answer me. At last, by common consent, the commission was given to one of them, of greater age and experience than the rest, an old man, of more than eighty years. He asked me in return, what commands the God of the Christians laid on them. I saw the old man’s perversity, and I refused to speak a word till he had first answered my question. So he was obliged to expose his ignorance, and replied that their gods required two duties of those who desired to go to them hereafter, one of which was to abstain from killing cows, because under that form the gods were adored; the other was to show kindness to the Brahmins, who were the worshippers of the gods. This answer moved my indignation, for I could not but grieve intensely at the thought of the devils being worshipped instead of God by these blind heathen, and I asked them to listen to me in turn. Then I, in a loud voice, repeated the Apostles’ Creed and the Ten Commandments. After this I gave in their own language a short explanation, and told them what Paradise is, and what Hell is, and also who they are who go to Heaven to join the company of the blessed, and who are to be sent to the eternal punishments of hell. Upon hearing these things they all rose up and vied with one another in embracing me, and in confessing that the God of the Christians is the true God, as His laws are so agreeable to reason.”

–Saint Francis Xavier

Letter from Goa to the Society of Jesus (Rome), 1543

I think the Nuncio needs to read the lives of the saints before walking into another useless Ecumenical social event. Perhaps he’ll be inspired to preach the Gospel as Our Lord commanded?

JOAN:

Dear Fr. Joe, thank you for your kind reply. I am definitely out of my league in knowledge, etc. to be commenting on this. It sounds like it is possible that good Papal Nuncio may have been set up for someone’s agenda, but the Roman Curia are usually extremely wise when it comes to things like that.

Perhaps it was the Papal Nuncio who ministered to him as St. Francis Xavier did. We only know what the picture shows, we are not privy to their private conversation.

I can only imagine what the Traditionalists and anti-Catholic Protestants would make of this event. I am a convert myself. I have found that Traditionalists are pretty hateful about everything, and few anti-Catholic Protestants are exceptionally kind to anything Catholic. There are many more very good Protestants who are, however. I have recently been dumped by anti-Catholic relatives who held out hoping I would become Baptist again. I know that not all Baptists are like that. I offer up my heartache for their conversion and I pray for them. I know that good Protestants go to Heaven as well as Catholics. They suffer from ignorance and not malice.

However, as a lay person I would not want to second guess the Papal Nuncio. My husband and I attended Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC on November 11, 2006. The Papal Nuncio re-consecrated the United States to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in solidarity with the Bishops of the United States at that time. Fr. Andrew Apostali was the homilist and the Cardinal from Philadelphia was there also. It was an incredible event. It was also our 34th wedding anniversary so that made it even more special for us.

Thank you again for your kind response, Fr. Joe. I will keep you in all of my prayers and I humbly ask for your prayers also.

FATHER JOE:

Thanks again for your comments, Joan, and many congratulations on your marriage and strong faith. I live only a few minutes from the Shrine, I must have been very busy to have missed the re-consecration. I regularly visit the Shrine and have attended lectures at Catholic University where my god-daughter is a student. Returning to the subject of the post, my suspicion is that the nuncio was invited to the interfaith awards event and was not informed about the candle-lighting until the last moment. He might have been desperately afraid of insulting his hosts and understanding that the lamp lighting possessed cultural but not spiritual symbolism, participated without much deliberation. The Hindus are used to Christians who give such matters little reflection and they may have innocently presumed that there would be no problem with a Catholic representative. The Holy See has been walking on eggs given the heightened sensitivity of others: the Moslems over a historical reference to violence in the Koran and the Brazilian Indians over their purification by Christianity. Lately, Hindus in India have been increasing their persecution and intolerance toward Christians. It would not take much to set them off. Who knows what the headlines would have been had he refused to light the lamp. In any case, the picture is unfortunate and I suspect we will be hearing about it for some time to come. God bless you!

CATHERINE:

Imagine all the martyrs who went to their deaths, being eaten by lions, raped, tortured, grilled on spits, beheaded, thrown on freezing ponds, etc. rather than “offer homage” to idols as this bishop is doing. How is it that the same Faith that condemned paying homage to idols, asking its people to go to their death rather than light a candle, offer a sacrifice or bow before a false deity? How can the Church now not only allow but approve of a BISHOP no less, doing the same?

If Christ was righteously angered at the money changers in the temple, what would he do to the idol bringers?

And to those who say “maybe he didn’t know,” let me ask you which is worse… to have a teacher/leader purposefully go against Christianity or have one in authority not know the most basic Judeo-Christian tenant?

May heaven have mercy on us!

SUTEMOS:

We pray for the blind and those who deceive. We offer prayers for those, with their public mouth bound, must endure (in these times) the Crucifixion of the Church. Again, let our not knowing be the reason for our transgressions.

HECTOR:

Dear Father Joe, as to the nuncio question, for one to be heretical, one would have to have intent and forethought. Did he make a mistake? It is more than likely; but a mistake leaning towards the good. If his Hindu hosts intended him to worship, they erred, as worship can only be valid if the person intends to worship… which I don’t think the nuncio did.

FATHER JOE:

I would never say he purposely committed a heretical act. It may have been an accident, something unplanned. The trouble is the scandal it gives. My reference to Hindu worship was generic, restricting itself to ritual and ceremonial. I doubt a bishop and priest would personally intend any spiritual efficacy behind such a gesture as lighting candles before an idol.

WILL:

I fail to see or to understand the concern here? Roman Catholicism was invented by a pagan (Constantine) and is full of idol worship which is forbidden by Biblical Christianity.

FATHER JOE:

No, Constantine legalized Christianity within the Roman Empire. Catholicism (the first Christians) suffered persecution for centuries and martyrdom. Read the writings of these suffering men and women and they talk about their bishops, priests, deacons, and the Eucharist. Jesus instituted the Catholic “Christian” Church!

As for idol worship, Catholics did not worship idols. Indeed, many pagan idols were destroyed. Statues of Mary, Jesus and the saints would be venerated, but this is not the same as worship… not any more than a person keeping a picture of his spouse and kids on the desk. They remind us of those whom we love.

WILL:

It is my understanding that Roman Catholics believe God left them in charge of truth, etc. Thus they are free to define and redefine truth any way they choose.

FATHER JOE:

This is false. Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, John. The Magisterium (Pope and bishops) interpret and define the faith; however, they cannot make it up. For instance, Jesus rose from the dead. No one is free to say otherwise… not the Pope… and not you. Our Catholic teachers are at the service of the truth; they are not its masters!

WILL:

This being the case, how could the nuncio make a mistake? Am I wrong?

FATHER JOE:

Yes, you are in gross error about Catholic history and belief. You have also been led down the road of bigotry.

JEFF:

Pastor Joe, I am astonished that you are bothered by this? The Catholic Church was founded on the principles of absorbing other religions, adopting their pagan idols and simply renaming them to religious names. The archbishop is being a good Catholic here. Your own statue of Peter at the Vatican was once Jupiter. And the history behind the icons of Mary, holding the infant Jesus, strangely resembles Babylonian Seramis and her infant ‘god’-child Tamuz. Give the archbishop a break, he’s setting a good Catholic example by worshipping at an idol – could be that in his mind he is calling it something else.

FATHER JOE:

It is true that the Church appropriates what she can from the indigenous cultures where she finds herself. However, there are limits, particularly when there are elements that run contrary to the basic kerygma of salvation.

I would recommend the book SILENCE, a historical novel about the efforts of Spanish missionaries in Japan. Because the core teachings of Christianity resisted any amalgamation with the practices and beliefs of various Eastern or Oriental religions, it found itself at odds with Japanese culture and eventually even with the warlords. It remained something foreign and seemingly threatening to the powers that be.

It must also be said that the pagan religion of the ancient Romans and Greeks lacked a certain sophistication and was largely ridiculed even by so-called adherents. Christianity absorbed certain things while others had to be dismissed. Archeologists and others often lament the vast amount of art and writing that was destroyed by Church believers.

As for the statue of St. Peter at the Vatican: “In the northwestern (right front) corner of the nave is the bronze statue of St. Peter Enthroned, now attributed to late 13th-century sculptor Arnolfo di Cambio (some still date it back to the 5th century). It is robed and crowned on high festivals, and its outstretched foot is smoothed down due to centuries of pilgrims’ caresses.”

There is no arguing or debating with you. Your comment is meant in an anti-Catholic and mocking way. The archbishop may have made a mistake. The Church sought to “Christianize” elements of pagan art and philosophy. You, no doubt, in a fundamentalist manner, see things the other way around— the wrong way.

BAL RAM SINGH:

Father Joe, with the advent of 21^stcentury and the availability of free knowledge, it should help the public (of all faiths) to develop a better understanding of symbolism used in different traditions, and hopefully imbibe a united appreciation.

However, I wanted to convey a clarification of the two statues on either side of the lamps, we sometimes use even on our university campus for programs. Those statues are more like courtiers welcoming guests than a symbol of the goddess Lakshmi you are mistaking due to your limited knowledge of the Diwali ceremonies.

I hope this helps many of your readers feel better about their archbishop and faith, which I think needs to move forward with the times representing a true spirit in which Jesus Christ himself believed in changing ritualistic ideas.

FATHER JOE:

Thank you for your comments. I beg to disagree, though. No, it does not wash. I still feel that it was a mistake to light candles or make any kind of offering. I hope no one makes the same error with the Pope when he visits in April. [Addendum: It was carefully avoided!] I doubt that Pope Benedict XVI will go along with it. The statues are still pagan deities, idols, and idolatry is still a grievous sin… for both Jews and Christians. I would call your so-called “true spirit” a counterfeit or BAD ECUMENISM. We will have to agree to disagree. The problem here is not my ignorance about false religion, but your ignorance about Catholicism. God bless you.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

Here we go again, the narrow minded, fanatical, arrogant and spiritually ignorant Catholics at work.

FATHER JOE:

The post remarked about a mistake made by a representative of the Holy See who was himself a good, holy and faithful bishop of the Church. I suspect that he found himself in a predicament about which his hosts themselves did not understand the severity under our Catholic teachings and practices. The reason why I made comment was precisely to offer a corrective to those voices that claim such things are permissible and to assure good Catholics that idolatry and false worship are still very much forbidden. Catholics can show the proper human respect to the followers of false religion, like Hinduism, as well as applaud those elements which are akin to Christian truths and values, but we are absolutely forbidden to compromise ourselves or to promote religious relativism. However, even if we should show human respect to others, the critic him or herself impugns as “narrow minded,” “fanatical,” “arrogant,” and “spiritually ignorant” any respect he or she should give to traditional Christianity or to the person of a priest who knows what he is talking about. Is the critic Hindu or a Catholic who fails to fully appreciate the parameters of Catholic Christianity? It is the sort of disrespect for Catholic and Christian values one often sees from a rigid secularism that tolerates anything except what it views as intolerant. It is also symptomatic of lapsed Catholics who practice New Age cults sympathetic to the Eastern Oriental religions.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

First of all, the 2 “idols” on each sides of the Rangoli are not Hindu Deities, but 2 ladies in a welcoming posture, sometimes used as a welcoming prop.

FATHER JOE:

Sorry, I checked on the matter, and the images do indeed fit within the pantheon of Hindu idols. They are not images without substance and neither are they quaint decorations (props) like figures of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Having said this, those of other religions are free to practice as they wish; the problem here is how far one might go at religious collaboration when it comes to ritual. I would argue that we can pray in close physical proximity but that our individual prayers and ceremonials must remain distinct.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

The Rangoli itself is a Holy diagram (yantra) representing the Universe /Creation, which is the Divine in Manifest form.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, I am aware of much of this. However, given that Christians have a very different worldview, even the use of this so-called “holy diagram” is problematical for Christians. We do not believe in such pantheism where creation and divinity are mixed or immediately expressive. We can find something of the divine fingerprint in creation but creation in no way is identified with the one true God.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

Also, the Catholics are indeed idol worshippers as well, bowing and praying to saint statues, the Virgin Mary statues and Crucifixes.

FATHER JOE:

Catholics use iconography (sacred images) to remind us about our heroes in faith and about Jesus and Mary. But, we are not idol worshippers. We do not worship statues. We reverence holy objects and use sacramentals. There is a big difference between this and the use of idols by Oriental polytheists. The economy of images is changed from Hebrew usage because of the incarnation of Christ. No longer is the prohibition against images found in the Decalogue an absolute one. But, it has not been utterly erased.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

In fact, no religion is not worshipping idols.

FATHER JOE:

This is not true. Various Oriental religions practice forms of idolatry forbidden to Christians. The ancient pagans, Greek and Roman, also did such and it was condemned by the Church.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

Christians of all denominations are worshipping the Cross, a “graven image” and the Bible, a book.

FATHER JOE:

It may be that some sects of Christianity seem to stress the book of the Bible over the message and messenger, but ultimately it is faith in Jesus that is pursued. The Word of God brings us into a living relationship with Jesus. As for the Cross, there is no symbol as evocative of the price Jesus paid for the remission of our sins. Catholics and other Christians reserve true divine worship to God. Honor paid to the saints and to Mary is meant to draw us closer to the Lord Jesus.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

Even the Mohammedans worship and idol, the Kaaba and its black stone inside, as well as worshipping a book, the Koran. So don’t be hypocrites!

FATHER JOE:

I am the last one to defend Islam, but I would not regard as idolatry or divine worship the respect they show the black stone or their holy book. Christians and Muslims are regarded as monotheists; Hinduism is regarded as polytheistic, although certain scholars (contaminated by the West?) are arguing that the many Hindu deities are all manifestations of one God. It must also be said that their view of idols (images) is not the same as that held by Catholicism. That may be part of the problem here. How you interpret the use of symbolic language and ritual is incompatible with the Catholic appreciation.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

The “idol” is used as a medium through which one focuses and address the limitless Divine Reality.

FATHER JOE:

While iconography reminds us of sacred persons and mysteries (something about which certain fundamentalist Christians object), the Church is ever mindful that ours is a jealous God. I am not convinced that any divine reality worshipped by the pagans is one and the same as the Jewish Yahweh or the Father of Jesus. The Sacred Heart symbolism and the Cross or Crucifix are particularly valuable for drawing the Christian believer to a relationship with the divine mystery. However, the most important and immediate “medium” for Catholics is the Eucharist. Here is no empty sign but that which is signified has been made present—Jesus Christ, divinity, soul and humanity, body and blood! Ultimately there is only one “medium” for Catholics, and we use a similar word to describe it, MEDIATOR. Jesus is the way to the Father. His is the only saving name. He is the one who redeems all humanity. No one can know salvation apart from Christ.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

It is natural to Humanity, as seen in every religion. It is like when you speak to someone on the telephone, you do not speak TO the telephone, but to someone THROUGH the telephone. Idols/symbols serve that very purpose.

FATHER JOE:

All this sidetracks the problem for Catholics. We cannot use symbols or idols from other religions (which possess meanings incompatible with Christian beliefs). We have our own means of communicating with the divine. Jesus has revealed to us the face of the Father and the Church gives us the sacraments and especially the Mass to celebrate our unity with God and with the communion of the saints. Using the critic’s analogy here, substituting the worship and rituals of pagan religions would be like putting down the telephone to use two cans attached by a string. One assuredly works for us, the other is highly dubious.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

The Human mind needs symbols, through which to communicate with the Divine Reality, in all the infinite forms it reveals itself through.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, we need symbolic language, and Catholicism uses plenty from ritual to art to music. However, while God is by definition infinite in majesty and essence, this does not mean that he can be communicated through endless material or earthly forms. Some forms are antithetical to the divine, particularly those which speak of the demonic. What if there is a miscommunication and demonic forms are substituted for those that truly point to the one true God? Various Eastern deities look more like devils than either God or angels to Western Christians.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

The Divine Reality is too big, too much above our limited comprehension and therefore, being limitless (something the human mind cannot comprehend), it reveals itself through everything in the universe/creation, which is the Divine in manifest form. So it’s mercy for our limited abilities of comprehension, it can be experienced through many Gods/Goddesses, Gurus, Spirits, etc.

FATHER JOE:

This may be the case with you, but the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all loving God has revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ. We are granted analogies to scratch at the divine mystery and call upon God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God has one divine Nature but three divine Persons. Jesus is a divine Person with a complete human and divine Nature. God gives us the terms by which we are to know him. No mythical Eastern anthropomorphism will do the trick. There is only one God. Christianity has no goddesses and while there are maternal elements to the divinity, the notion of goddess is spurned as heinous to the ears of orthodox Christians. Catholics love the mother of Jesus and implore her intercession, but divine worship is reserved to God alone. God revealed himself to us as Father and not Mother. That means the traits associated with fatherhood best apply to the godhead. Gurus and spiritualism are condemned by the Church and are also condemned as false religion. The first part of the Ten Commandments will not allow us to compromise the prerogatives of the one true God.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

Anyone who claims to be the only repository/channel of the Divine Reality, its final prophet, etc., is putting limits on the limitless and is deluded by the messianic syndrome, delusion caused by the uncontrolled ego. The Divine is one; but the ways to it are many. All the rivers go to the ocean, even though they take different paths.

FATHER JOE:

No, some of the rivers may only end up in sewers and cesspools. Not all religions are the same. Actually, you admit as much because you would have Christianity betray itself and become what you espouse. I knew such a perspective many years ago in academia. They officially espoused a religious relativism, but what they really meant was that you could embrace any religion as long as it was liberal and not Catholic. Yours is the true problematical “ego” in this discussion. While we Christians would allow you to go your own way, you insist that we must give up our revelation and Church and embrace your nonsense. Sorry, but you do not speak for me and I renounce your role as prophet. The divine is indeed one. And yes, there are many paths in the one way to the holy. However, not all paths are true and some are dead ends. Our Lord tells us that he is THE WAY AND THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. I would rather go his way than yours.

PHILDAS BHAKTA:

Renounce the gross spiritual ignorance of monotheism, caused by delusions of ego, and surrender the ego to the All-encompassing One through the Many! The goal of like is enlightenment, and not so called salvation, which is only necessary for the misguided soul which falsely believes in a tyrannical jealous “god” who curses people to eternal damnation because that dictator cannot stand having others worshipped. That jealousy and anger is nothing but very HUMAN FLAWS, nothing Divine at all. WAKE UP!

FATHER JOE:

At last the subterfuge has ended! You show your true colors! This whole exercise was to get Catholics to embrace heresy or even to commit apostasy! No faith has tried to dialogue both with the world and with God like Catholicism. You offer hocus pocus; we offer spiritual truth. There is no need for our good Christian and Catholic people to look to Hinduism and Buddhism and New Age religions. There is plenty in the West to feed us, and there is no poison mixed in with the food. We have wonderful spiritual guides in Bernard of Clairvaux, Bonaventure, Catherine of Genoa, Catherine of Siena, The Cloud of Unknowing, Francis and Clare, Hildegaard of Bingen, John of the Cross, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Thomas a Kempis, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liseux, Ignatius Xavier, Francis de Sales, etc. Christians can trust the Bible and the teaching Church. You, we cannot trust!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Church, Commandments, Ecumenism, Faith, God, Images, Jesus, Religion, Sin | Comments Off on Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 1

False Worship at John Paul II Cultural Center?

Posted on May 18, 2007 by Father Joe

Both traditionalist critics and anti-Catholic fundamentalists have pointedly targeted this event. They ask, “What the heck is going on here? How can this be happening? Is there some mistake, something we are missing?” Usually they also add comments like “I told you so.” While I am somewhat in the dark about this, I felt that some response should be made.

What is it that we see? Here is Archbishop Pietro Sambi, Papal Nuncio to the United States, lighting a Hindu devotional lamp (upon a traditional Indian rangoli) before two idols of Hindu deities. A rangoli is a painting claimed by Hindus as fashioned by the pagan Brahma deity. I have to wonder, “Was he led to view this ceremonial as a secular symbolism for peace?” Such must be the case.

Either things are not as they seem or he was momentarily deceived by the hosts, who were themselves ignorant of Catholic teaching and practice. The nuncio is a good and holy shepherd. I have no doubt about this. Nevertheless, I can understand perplexed souls left shaking their heads as to how one could do something that would ordinarily be judged as an active participation in false worship. Is it not an unspeakable Brahmanism?

I am reminded of the diwali lamp that the Hindus use at festival. What we have here is similar, an Indian oil lamp. I am at a loss for words to explain it. I am well aware of the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington. I regularly receive their newsletter and mailings. Dialogue to preserve the peace and to work together on projects important to the community I can understand. But we cannot join in pagan prayer with idol worshippers and polytheists.

The photograph here was taken at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center, a defunct museum now desperately searching for bookings and income to pay the forty million dollar debt of its construction.

This was the IFC’s 2nd Annual Bridge Builders Awards, honoring Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus who have performed outstanding “inter-religious” work. Archbishop Sambi helped to present the awards and engaged in a “private” discussion with the guests.

http://www.ifcmw.org/node/58

Dialogue is one thing, but lighting the candle was a definite mistake. I can only hope that the Catholics in attendance did not participate in any non-Christian verbal prayers. It is bad enough that a place dedicated to the late Pope should be contaminated by false worship and idols.

The meaning of the diwali-deepavali lamp varies from place to place. While used at festival, it can also be employed at special celebrations and when awards are given. It is meant to enhance the atmosphere of joy and festivity. The demon king of Lanka is fought off and the divine king Rama and Sita his queen return from exile. A row of lights is an invitation to Laxmi Pooja, the goddess of wealth and prosperity. The lamp reminds the Hindu believer that enlightenment and illumination are the goals of life. When used as part of the calendar festival, other deities are invoked on different days. The lamps are symbolic of a spiritual light pervading the world and destroying darkness and ignorance.

Notice here the two idols on the table during the lighting of the lamp. Call me stupid, but I cannot think of any defense for what happened. It was a major miscalculation and those who oppose the post-Vatican II Church are having a field-day with it.

The Hindu cultural meanings and themes are all very interesting, but also very pagan and unchristian. I hope the Vatican will offer some explanation for this happening. Have we not learned anything from that interfaith fiasco at Fatima some years ago?

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

ADDENDUM: Closeup View of One of the Statues

Does anyone recognize it? The opposite one looks similar.

Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 1

Debate on IFC’s 2007 Bridge Builders Confusion, Part 2

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Commandments, Magisterium, Religion | Tagged: Ecumenism | Comments Off on False Worship at John Paul II Cultural Center?

USCCB MONITUM: Fr. Ken Roberts

Posted on April 3, 2007 by Father Joe

Fr. Kenneth Roberts is a priest of the Diocese of Dallas, Texas who has been suspended from ministry and also had incurred restrictions (such as not being able to wear clerical garb and from presenting himself as a priest in good standing). He is supposedly living in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and had allegedly been celebrating home Masses and associating with children and teenagers in violation of his suspension and earlier restrictions.

Father Roberts was suspended back in 1998. He is well remembered for his books, tapes, appearances on EWTN, retreats, and support for the Medjugorje apparitions and messages. I have remarked before about the tragedy of the author of PLAYBOY TO PRIEST.

DEBATE ABOUT MILINGO & MARRIED PRIESTS NOW!

Posted on September 27, 2006 by Father Joe

144080553270835

This discussion is based upon yesterday’s post.

AMBER

There are several words for this but all that comes to mind right now is “disturbing.” I simply don’t get how they justify their actions.

GUY

Bongo, Bongo, Bongo— I never should have left the Congo—

What a circus side show! It seems that Peter Brennan is a member of every organization that will take him in.

Guthro, whom I have met on more than three occasions, was ALWAYS in choir cassock even though no liturgy was taking place. I guess if I put out all that cash for those glad rags I’d wear mine to the grocery store too! (I’ve heard that he does as well.)

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

A married priest comments:

Dear Father Joe, the issue was not apostolic succession. Each of these bishops is quite firm in his apostolic succession. The issue was MARRIED priests and bishops. I was ordained as a married priest so your inference about broken promises is mistaken. Your research is weak and minimal since you are just re-hashing media errors and assumptions. You should be able to do better. The Gospel of Jesus might say something about promoting this type of detraction and mud-slinging.

FATHER JOE

If each of these men were truly clear about his apostolic succession, additional ceremonies would be unwarranted. Of course, what really matters is not what each of these men think, but what the true Church holds to be true.

Are you Archbishop Brennan, or just using his name here? The post is unclear and the subsequent comment implies you are someone else.

If Peter Brennan were a professed religious as his biography states, then promises were broken. Or was even this “calling” outside the confines of the “real” Catholic Church? Along with the others, he is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church, outside of which (as the Fourth Lateran Council teaches) there is no salvation. Of course, the spiritual state of those who come to them and receive their sacraments is less clear, depending upon their understanding and profession of faith. I reiterate the Holy Father’s statement of excommunication with no malice, although I cannot pretend to feel no repugnance and sadness. That is probably what you see reflected in my words.

We have thousands of married clergy in the Catholic Church. Some of them were formerly Episcopalians or Lutherans who saw the inclusion of women and explicitly active gays in ministry as the further sign that ritual Protestantism could not constitute any form of third way of orthodoxy or Catholicism, and definitely not an “in media res.” Most of our married clergy are deacons. Indeed, my cousin’s husband is a deacon who operates a parish in North Carolina. The teaching and governing Church has every right to regulate her sacraments as she sees fit. I personally think the discipline of compulsory celibacy is an important and valuable element of Roman Catholic tradition. God works with the genuine shepherds of the Church and thus any man “truly given a religious vocation” also receives the charism of a celibate and single-hearted love. Men who left to get married or those who are angry after making their promises have my pity, but not my support. Given the age we live in, to forsake romantic love and intimacy is an intense sacrifice that should immediately join a priest to the Cross of Christ— not merely in sorrow but in joy. It is wrong to try and force the Church’s hand about a married priesthood. That day may come, but I suspect defections and parallel ecclesial communities will only short-circuit and delay its coming.

Archbishop Richard Arthur Marchenna, if he is the one who initially ordained Brennan, was a bishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church. If he was formerly a member of the true Catholic Church, then here is another case of broken promises, if only those made for him at baptism. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for those who join schismatic and breakaway faith communities. (Was he always ORCC?) While valid orders are sometimes acknowledged for a few of these groups, I must admit that I find much of it quite suspect. Now that some organizations are attempting to ordain women, the small lingering doubts are being brushed away. The priesthood is entirely lost.

I would be curious to see the ordinale recently used by Archbishop Milingo. Canonist friends of mine assert that any episcopal consecrations or absolute ordinations would be valid if the men were already truly priests and if the proper ritual was utilized. Tampering with the ritual, just as old Cranmer did for the Anglicans, can invalidate the whole business. Of course, consecrating bishops must still have the proper intention, and here too I must confess some concern, because it is hard to fathom how a man who claimed he was brainwashed might now be in his right mind.

I never intended a dissertation about what happened. Certainly, I am open to being enlightened. Notice I have not deleted your comments here. Indeed, reading your remarks gave me some peculiar amusement on a dreary overcast Sunday morning.

Do I sling mud? Hum, sometimes I get some on myself, too— mea culpa. In any case, while we very much disagree, these men are very much in my prayers, just as I have prayed daily for George Stallings these many years since my brother priest left the ranks of the Washington presbyterate. PEACE!

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Maybe an honest discussion about married priests would be much more worthwhile. What is the church going to do in twenty years since the average age of celibate priests now is above 70 years of age? Marriage will not make anyone younger but it will attract more young men (and women) to the profession. Here is an excerpt from a Catholic writer Roger Chesley of the Virginia Pilot who sees different possibilities.

With roughly 64 million members, the Catholic Church in the U.S. has struggled recently with rising numbers of parishioners and fewer priests to lead them. There are nearly 41,800 diocesan and religious priests in the country, down from 58,900 in 1975, according to the nonprofit Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

Meanwhile, married Episcopalian and Lutheran priests who convert to Catholicism have been allowed to remain priests, said Ryan of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I’m Catholic, and I’d appreciate a serious discussion among church leaders about married priests. But in no way can I condone what Archbishop Milingo has been doing. His methods are wrong. Though the church generally resists change, there’s still value in working from within— cajoling, persuading, reasoning. The archbishop’s actions amounted to freelancing.

“The church hasn’t moved in that direction at all” to end mandatory celibacy among priests, said Mary Gautier, senior research associate at CARA.

The Holy See Press Office said this week in a communique that the Archbishop Milingo’s “new association of married priests” has spread “division and confusion among the faithful.”

That’s unfortunate, given the importance of the issue that Milingo has done so much to raise.

FATHER JOE

I would agree that Archbishop Milingo has chosen the wrong method of getting his message across. I have no personal problem with priests and laity who work humbly and faithfully within the Church for a change of discipline. Although I believe the issue of women priests has been permanently resolved in the negative by Pope John Paul II and in such a way that it cannot be reopened.

I visited the website for Married Priests Now!

What do I think? Here is my initial reaction:

Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the Holy See, but “Married Priests Now!” is NOT a canonical personal prelature. Such a designation is a misnomer and deliberately misleading. Archbishop Milingo does not have the authority to create his own personal prelature. Archbishop Milingo and the four bishops he consecrated are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I know of no ground swell to return married priests to full ministry. Indeed, most married priests are themselves of advanced age and will soon be leaving this earthly pilgrimage entirely. If the Church should relax its discipline further in regard to a married priesthood, it is fairly certain that there would not be a retroactive component. Married men might become deacons and priests, but men who broke their vows would not be invited back. They proved themselves unreliable and while ontologically and sacramentally priests forever, will remain inactive and/or canonically laicized.

The “Brennan” poster insists that this is not a matter of assuring apostolic succession, but an article at the website linked to his comment (to which he directed me) says differently: “On September 24, 2006 Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the Roman Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop Emeritus of Lusake, Zambia, consecrated four Americans as Married Roman Catholic Bishops and appointed them to be Roman Catholic Archbishops.” The emphasis is that he made them bishops. Of course, they are all excommunicated, and so can hardly be called “Roman Catholic” given that they are all now disconnected from the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is bigger than one rogue bishop and four pretenders!

The Vatican affirms that they are all automatically excommunicated and yet Milingo states: “We cordially thank the Holy Father for his gracious and caring concern about us and Our College of Bishops and the Prelature for Married Priests Now! It is our intention to be faithful to the Church and to honor and respect the Holy Father. We thank him for his brotherly love and we hope to return the same to him.” Such a response shows one of two things, that Milingo is not above mocking the Church’s negative response or that he can no longer mentally comprehend how the Holy See actually views the situation.

Note that Milingo has violated his own promise of celibacy (by a civil or Moonie marriage if not by consummation) and that he would lead other men in the priesthood to do the same. He also violates a hallmark of Catholic faith, which is obedience. Disobedience by an archbishop to the Pope is no sign of respect, but of rebellion. Such is often the happenstance with fools or liars… and it may be that only God can tell who belongs to which category.

Priests dismissed from ministry for breaking their promises and getting married have been shown no injustice. Indeed, they are the ones who have inflicted a wound upon the Church. The Judas-priest also knows a long succession in the history of the Church and for many reasons like power, passion, weakness, and perversity.

I can respect a man who is released from his promises, is laicized and then gets married with the commitment to remain in the Church and raise his children as good Catholics. But attempting marriage while still bound by the promises of celibacy and obedience is wrong. It not only hurts the priest and the Church, but wrongs the woman by making her a spouse in name only. Civil contracts are not always recognized by God and the Church. Such rogue clergy turn their spouses into concubines and are fornicators masquerading as married men. The injustice on so many levels rests with Milingo and his new apostles.

Given that this Married Priests Now! organization also includes women priests, canonists might argue that there is a defect in intention, making any subsequent ordinations after rupture from Catholic unity– NULL AND VOID! The definition of what constitutes a bishop and priest may not sufficiently jive with genuine Catholic teaching. More and more, this is my opinion.

The Married Priests Now! movement says that they only want the restoration to ministry of married clergy. However, this is not true. Stallings broke away from Catholic unity many years before taking to himself his Moonie Asian wife. Indeed, at one time he was engaged to an Episcopalian gal from Texas, but she declared the whole thing off when troubling stories emerged about Stallings. The Washington Post even published a few articles about his association with certain “young” men in Washington, DC. Certainly, taking to himself a female spouse might put such stories to rest. I suspect that the real issue for him and all these men remains one of authority. George wanted to be a bishop and when that prospect seemed unlikely, he took off. These other men would also not accept being told what to do…not about sexuality…not about anything. Milingo has been fooled into thinking that this is simply a matter about married priests. It is not. It is about four men who wanted to make sure that they were really bishops…and repeated ordination ceremonies is ample evidence that they had their doubts. Milingo was used, plain and simple! Of course, he remains culpable.

Such movements often get quickly out of hand. If Milingo attempts to exert authority over them, I bet you this fragile prelature will fracture. Many of those who support a change in the discipline about married priests could not accept a radical change in doctrine that would permit women priests. We shall see in the weeks and months ahead just how far the contagion of dissent and heresy will go.

While the website is a harbinger of doom about clergy numbers, recent seminary classes are beginning to grow again and the men are more conservative and orthodox than we have seen in a long time. This is the truth that they would hide behind slanted statistics.

The discipline of celibacy is not merely a medieval dictum but is one that the living Church continues to see as worthwhile in most of our priests. It goes back over 900 years and even before that was extolled as the better way by many of the doctors of the Church. St. Paul, himself, recommends it. No one has a right to priesthood. It is a gift that comes from God and is given to the Church. Reserving the priesthood to single men is no injustice to married men and to women. Those that think so, as the site seems to stress, are guilty of wrong thinking… not as the Church thinks.

We read on the webpage: “The sexual abuse accusations against celibate priests in the United States speaks loudly that something is wrong. And what is wrong is the enforcement of a promise of celibacy on secular clergy.” This canard alerts us immediately that the argumentation for married priests is desperate to find reasons for a change. Abusers would still abuse, even if married. Indeed, some of the actual priest abusers had left ministry, gotten married, and then abused their own children… or the babysitters! Although it does not make the news, married Protestant ministers have their own problems, not only with child abuse but with gay relationships and with adultery and remarriage. Half of all Lutheran ministers are divorced and remarried! Indeed, priests who leave ministry for marriage have an inordinately high divorce rate. Priests troubled in keeping their promises and with intimacy will continue to have this struggle even if they should marry.

The website has no love for marriage, but has adopted the Moonie notion that men must be married and that to be single or celibate is to be a failure. Indeed, Jesus is faulted as a Messiah precisely because he failed to get married and have children. Notice what the website says: “Secular clergy should be married so that they can model what a good family is in the church community and so they can relate to the families they serve.” So, what are we to expect, a reversal from compulsory celibacy to compulsory marriage– count me out!

Men who have left ministry in order to get married without laicization can never be permitted to rejoin the ranks of the clergy, indeed, I would even object to these men returning if their spouses should die. They are not to be trusted. (Again, I might make an exception for men who did not attempt marriage and who waited for the laicization process, no matter how long and arduous.) Priests married outside the Church are not really married. Why would I want adulterers and fornicators back in the ranks of our good and faithful priests? No! They might yet repent and save their souls, but should never be allowed to minister in the Church, in any fashion.

Imani Temple and other groups can hold all the conventions they want for these men. Why should I care what a Protestant church does as it masquerades at being Catholic? Given a little more time and most of the thousands who left ministry will be in the grave. Already organizations like CORPUS are aging gatherings of old men. It is best to let them go. Better a smaller pool of priests than to contaminate the presbyterate with dissenters of this stripe. Most of these priests who left to get married subscribed to a whole list of doctrinal deviations, like support for women priests, peculiar Eucharistic theories, and dissent against the Church’s teachings about human sexuality and the evil of artificial contraception. I say let them go and allow God to take care of them.

A lot is made of the fact that these men fell in love, of course some of them bring their second or third wives to these convocations of shared grievances and lament. Honestly, most priests fall in love at some time or the other. Good priests then make distance to insure that they do not lead the woman into mortal sin. It might break his heart, but he lets her go because he has married the Church and promises are made to be kept. If he cannot keep his promises of celibacy and obedience in priesthood; how can he ask couples to keep their promises of marriage? Sometimes the greatest love is not expressed with a kiss or an embrace, but by letting go. Many faithful priests have suffered thus in silence, knowing that it was God’s will and the demand of their vocation. These are my heroes, men who weep for their people and make themselves poor in their service. In a sex crazed world, their celibacy gives them a special connection with the lonely and the poor and the sick. He belongs to them, even as he surrenders himself to Christ and to the Cross.

These rascals make demands on the Pope, sounding not unlike the radical Moslems as they seek to tell the successor of Peter his business. Note what Milingo says at their website: “Marriage is a sacrament and is a higher calling than celibacy.” This runs against the grain of ancient Christian tradition where celibate love was always deemed higher than sexual love. Most people will get married, but celibacy and perpetual virginity requires special graces and is a higher sacrifice. Their assertion impugns the long line of holy virgins and the religious sisters and nuns who have served the Church.

The audacity of these people know no bounds. Milingo writes: “We will work closely with the Holy Father, the Vatican offices, and other married priest organizations to once again make a married priesthood a normal part of the Church.” No they will not. They are now excluded from the Church and no longer have a voice in the true Church. Indeed, they have already set up parallel churches. Let them do what they want, the real Church is better off without them. Milingo writes: “I consecrated these four married men as Roman Catholic bishops in valid apostolic succession. The power and authority of a bishop comes from the very power and authority of his own sacramental consecration. I was consecrated by Pope Paul VI and, equipped with that sacramental power from him, I consecrated four married men in valid apostolic succession. These men are validly ordained Roman Catholic Bishops today and remain so in spite of Rome’s posture of denial of recognition.”

There you have it, Milingo consecrated them because he found their earlier ordinations dubious! But, he is wrong about Rome failing to give recognition. He was very much within the Vatican radar. That is why the Holy See has declared him and his four so-called bishops, excommunicated. Has Milingo gone insane, how can he call these licit ordinations? I am not even sure if they are valid. He says that they do not accept this excommunication, but that he returns it to the Pope. But the Pope only affirmed it as a reality; Milingo himself incurred it automatically by doing what he did. It is entirely his doing. He compares what he has done to the calling of the apostles in the early Church, but unlike them, he has separated himself from Peter, the Vicar of Christ. He draws apostles to himself, but not for the Lord. Milingo has made himself an anti-pope, or maybe worse, maybe he now pictures himself in the role of God?

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

BREAKWAY BISHOPS SEEK SUCCESSION THRU MILINGO!

Posted on September 26, 2006 by Father Joe

Reports are unclear and have used various words for what Archbishop Milingo did in Washington, DC last Sunday, saying that he either installed or ordained four men. One thing is for certain, he follows the rhythm of his own drum, no matter how out of sync with the universal Church.

What the news media is missing about the Milingo fiasco is that all the men that he ordained (or consecrated) were in their own estimations, already bishops! If so, why would they go through this ritual with the Zambian archbishop? Scuttlebut says the following:

1. Archbishop Milingo himself was concerned that some of the independent bishops with whom he had found affiliation might not be validly ordained as bishops.

2. These men themselves often go to great lengths to convince others that they are true bishops. However, one has to wonder if they are not guilt-ridden and unsure themselves? Now, with an authentic Roman Catholic archbishop backing up their pedigree, they can put doubt to the wind.

It is also interesting to note that our own George Augustus Stallings, Junior seems to be moving back toward a more “orthodox” Catholic theology. He talks about the sacrament of penance again, although back in the early 1990’s he dismissed it.

Who are these men who have flocked to Milingo?

GEORGE STALLINGS – Imani Temple, 1015 I St., Washington, DC 20002

George Augustus Stallings, Jr. was born in 1948 and like Milingo has an Asian Moonie wife. He was a priest for the Archdiocese of Washington, DC and for many years was the popular pastor of St. Theresa’s Church. He was known for his lavish lifestyle and expensive tastes. Ordained in 1974, he founded the Imani Temple African American Catholic Congregation in 1989. He claims to have been ordained a bishop in 1990 and elevated (himself) to archbishop in 1991. He told a young girl on the Oprah television show that blacks are God’s chosen people and that people of color will be resurrected first in the heavenly kingdom, a tenet I think he shares with some of the Black Muslims.

PETER PAUL BRENNAN – 151 Regent Place, West Hempstead, New York 11552

Peter Brennan also started out as a Catholic and he claims membership in a whole assortment of ecclesial communions, none of which is truly Catholic: The Ecumenical Catholic Diocese of the Americas, the African Orthodox Church and the Order of Corporate Reunion. He attended Catholic seminaries, like Stallings, and was a professed Religious before his defection from true Catholic unity. A member of CORPUS, the issue of a married priesthood is also high on his agenda…much more so than fidelity to the sacred promises he once made. His bio says that he was ordained a priest in 1972 by Bishop Marchenna. He had himself ordained again in 1974, and later as a bishop in 1978, 1979, and twice in 1987. Evidently many of these were conditional ordinations in case it did not take the first time…try, try again…bingo, Milingo (2006)!

PATRICK TRUJILLO – 6020 Newkirk Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047

Pat Trujillo belongs to the Old Catholic Church, you know the group that also ordains the gals, now– just like George Stallings! They might have a nice liturgy, but that alone did not spare them increasing doctrinal divergence and heresy. He claims to be the ordinary of the Archdiocese of Our Lady of Guadalupe, New Jersey (despite the name, we are talking about a very small operation)!

I do not know much more about him. Maybe that is for the best, now that he is one of Milingo’s pals.

JOSEPH J. GOUTHRO – 925 Felix Palm Avenue, North Las Vegas, NJ 89032

Joe Gouthro is a Las Vegas hack for quickie weddings! I guess it gives Catholic patrons who are married “out of the Church” that religious feeling that it is okay, despite being married before and not really practicing anyway.

Like all the rest, he makes a point of telling us that he was “ordained and consecrated in valid Apostolic Succession” by some peculiar group called Catholic Apostolic Church International– a bogus Catholic group if ever there was one. He advertises on his shingle that he “officiates Catholic, interfaith, non-denominational, cross cultural and civil weddings.” Ah, and you should see his rates!

His website reports: “He will customize your ceremony according to your wishes. The ceremony can be officiated according to the Roman Catholic Ritual or the Anglican Book of Commom Prayer.” Look at this, he plays both Anglican and Catholic priest…oops, I mean, bishop!

What are his real credentials? He served three cruise lines as a coordinator. He must be the LOVE BOAT Bishop! And forget about the requirement of a Church wedding, he says he will marry you anywhere…golf clubs…hotels…nature sites…even Elvis marriage chapels with neon light glory!

I guess he has reservations about his holy orders like the other men, so Milingo made him official.

I wonder if all the ordinations were conditional and not absolute? Were all of these guys ex-Catholics, and if so, how much did the excommunications matter?

All four men claim affiliation to the breakaway Synod of Old Catholic Churches. “We are not only validly ordained Catholic bishops, but we are ordained Roman Catholic bishops,” George Stallings explained.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apostles, Archdiocese, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

Fallen TV Priests

Posted on January 5, 2006 by Father Joe

As I reflect upon the scandal caused by the Bud Macfarlane divorce, I am forced to face as well the legacy of disgrace that has been inflicted by famous priests.

Rev. Kenneth Roberts

I recall as a teenager picking up an IMAGE paperback in the back of the church one Sunday entitled Playboy to Priest by Rev. Kenneth Roberts. The work impressed me and along with several other books about priests, real and fictionalized, fueled my burning desire for a vocation. He would later become famous as the Medjugorie priest and he had several programs televised on EWTN on the Blessed Mother and a youth series based on one of his books, You Better Believe It. It was a great program and young people were really moved by it to study about and to live their Catholic faith. Upon my desk are other books he wrote, The Rest of the Week, Mary – The Perfect Prayer Partner, Fr. Roberts’ Guide to Personal Prayer, Pray It Again, Sam! and Nobody Calls It Sin Anymore. They were not particularly deep; but that was okay because they were popular works for the rank and file. He gave talks and conferences across the nation. His tapes and videos were bought and shared. He was loved. Then he disappeared and rumors spread.

A boyhood hero had fallen. When I had helped out in a Birmingham, Alabama parish in 1989, I actually met and had dinner with him. He was a regular on Mother Angelica’s Catholic television network. Now it turned out that he was continuing to wear clerics, function in public as a priest, and even did television work after he had been censured. Retired from the Dallas diocese for “health reasons” he had been suspended for violating restrictions placed upon him in 1995. His bishop made it very clear that he had to stop distributing his books and tapes and that he had to take down his website and Internet presence.

Dallas Bishop Charles V. Graham signed the decree of suspension on November 13 after verification that Father Roberts had violated restrictions. The English-born Father Roberts, ordained in 1966 for the Dallas Diocese, retired from the diocese for medical reasons on Sept. 1, 1995, and his faculties were restricted, barring him from exercising his priestly duties, wearing clerical garb and presenting himself as a Roman Catholic priest in good standing. His retirement followed public accusations of sexual molestation, though no civil or criminal charges were filed against him at that time. Now in his 70’s, civil charges were filed in 2004 where three are named in a lawsuit filed in November by John Doe. The suit alleges that the Rev. Kenneth Roberts, now retired, sexually abused Doe at St. Mary’s Catholic School in Belleville in 1984. The St. Louis Archdiocese and the Dallas Diocese have responded by asserting that St. Clair County Court has no jurisdiction over them because they do not do business there. St. Louis also says Roberts was never assigned or employed here, although he was allowed to live in three parishes in Florissant and was permitted to conduct some religious services here.

What happened? Was this for real? Fr. Roberts seemed so genuine and faithful; was it all a lie? I have kept him in my prayers because of his importance in my life and in the lives of so many. But, I doubt that the wound caused by these revelations will heal any time soon. There is also a lot of meanness about what happened. One nasty blooger said something like, “What do you think his revised autobiography will be titled, “Playboy to Priest to Pervert”? If the allegations are true, then we pray for the victims and perpetrator. The posture of the Christian is always on our knees in prayer and in petition for mercy.

All of Fr. Robert’s tapes and videos are off the market. His webpage is gone. His programs deleted from the EWTN schedule and some have said they have been destroyed. Is it right that a man’s possible weakness and sin should utterly destroy his legacy?

Rev. Laurence Brett

As a young priest, the pastor and I subscribed to monthly videos of a Paulist production called SHARE THE WORD. The Sunday readings were explained and many useful ideas were given for preaching. The host was an articulate and dynamic priest by the name of Rev. Laurence Brett. We were so impressed that he accepted our invitation to do three weeks of Friday talks and to lead the Stations of the Cross during Lent. He smoked constantly and affected a strong Irish brogue for effect during the Stations. I found the later a bit disconcerting. Why would he purport to be Irish when he usually had no such accent? It seemed like posturing and bothered me. However, his words were good and he proved himself knowledgable about the Scriptures and our faith.

I was transferred and the program, which was also on cable, eventually disappeared. For awhile the Paulists were toying with taking the tapes and re-editing a Sunday commentary series out of it. But, nothing happened. Later, I found out why.

Years before, Frank Martinelli was a 14-year-old altar boy attracted to Rev. Laurence Brett as a role model at St. Cecilia’s in Stamford, Conn. Martinelli claimed that Father Brett fondled him in a bathroom and that the priest urged him to offer fellation while feigning the blessing of Holy Communion. Thirty years passed before he and other young people spoke out. When the priest was finally censured, he became a fugitive. Church officials in Bridgeport and Baltimore called Brett a criminal and an “evil man.” Even the FBI had trouble finding him. He changed the spelling of his name to conceil his identity and settled in 1996 on the island of Anguilla, a short boat ride from St. Maarten.

These men were notable evangelizers through the modern communications medium. They reached out to millions. Little or nothing has been said to explain what happened or to heal the harm caused to believers. The Pharisees had no monopoly on hypocrisy. Hopefully people will remember the message and not so much the messenger.

Discussion

LAURENCE:

Do you think I should stop listening to Fr. Robert’s tapes? I joined the Catholic Society of Evangelists and they provide 4 of his tapes for donations. His teachings are theologically sound. Is it okay to let others listen to his work?

FATHER JOE:

The question you ask is hard to answer. A priest teaches, as we all do, by both what we say and by what we do. While a person could be moved by Fr. Roberts’ ideas and gentle teaching manner, the allegations of sexual misconduct with minors are so severe that I suspect they would likely cause too much scandal and cause more harm than good. The fact that he disobeyed his bishop makes the case even more serious. You can make use of the tapes, but I would not generally share them any longer with potential converts or returnees.

Do not loose heart and know that a good number of us in the ranks of the clergy are behaving ourselves and still proclaiming the Gospel.

Filed under: Catholic, Celebrities, Celibacy, Homosexuality, Morality, Priests, Sexuality, Sin | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page