Religion | Blogger Priest

Mary, the Messiah and a New Nation

Posted on June 29, 2011 by Father Joe

The People of God began as a family, later grew into a tribe and eventually became a great nation. But they would also know upheaval and exile. The one prophet who spoke most forcibly about restoration and the coming of a Messiah was Isaiah. He gives a broken people the gift of hope:

“The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).

This young maiden or virgin is Mary (Matthew 1:23). Similarly, the prophet Micah also speaks of a woman who would restore Israel. Understanding that those of the Church, Jew and Gentile alike, are members of the New Israel or New Zion, the prophecy fits Mary quite nicely:

“Hence Yahweh will abandon them only until she who is in labor gives birth, and then those who survive of his race will be reunited to the Israelites” (Micah 5:3).

Given her unique role in salvation history as the vehicle through whom the All Holy One would enter our world, she herself is preserved from every stain of sin as the first fruits of his saving works (Proverbs 8:22-35).

Filed under: Church, Jesus, Mary, Religion | Leave a comment »

Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Posted on June 24, 2011 by Father Joe

This is a reposting of a topic from 2006 when I was the pastor of Holy Spirit Church in Forestville, MD.

“Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), also known as Amputee Identity Disorder or Apotemnophilia (from Greek αποτέμνειν “to cut off”, and φιλία “love of”) is the overwhelming desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs or other parts of the body. Sometimes its sufferers take it upon themselves to amputate their own limbs and/or penis. Although it most commonly refers to people who wish to amputate limbs, the term BIID, or ‘wannabe’ also applies to those who wish to alter their bodily integrity.” (WIKIPEDIA)

Claire – October 28, 2006

Hi Father,

This doesn’t have a whole lot to do with sex, but a lot to do with life. I would very much like to have a Catholic viewpoint on the treatment of Body Integrity Identity Disorder. I have written an open letter to you here:

http://transabled.org/thoughts/dear-father-joe.htm

Thanks for your time and consideration.

God bless,

Claire

Dear Claire,

Certainly, I will keep you in my prayers. I cannot say that I had heard of Body Integrity Identity Disorder, but I have encountered people suffering from mental illnesses or problems akin to it.

It is unclear to me why my perspective is required. You already do a good job in your post focusing on the Catholic Church’s position regarding such matters as unwarranted amputation. It falls under the sin of mutilation. The inconsistency in the thinking of such individuals seems readily apparent. One might think that if he or she could have the impaired body of choice (with which one identifies) then he or she could go on with life and its responsibilities. However, speaking as a pastor of a small elderly community, physical handicaps can be as terrible as the mental ones. Mental or physical illnesses can both incapacitate the person and make it impossible to fulfill the duties of our state of life.

Not having an adequate expertise in the fields of psychology and medicine, I cannot speak to what experiences and/or biochemistry causes mental illness. What the Church would say is that, just as in gender mis-identification and same-sex attraction cases, there is a basic disorientation. This disorientation, in itself, is not a sin. However, the moral line is crossed with acting out and/or engaging in forbidden behavior. The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality to be a mental illness. However, the Church has never accepted this revision as legitimate. It should also be said, that mental illness can mitigate somewhat from the gravity of a sin. The conditions for a sinful act are laid out as follows: the act must itself be evil or wrong; the agent must know that is immoral; and the agent’s volition must be sufficiently unimpaired or free.

Given the problem that you describe, the most serious wrongs would center upon the issue of causing self-harm, like amputation, causing blindness or deafness, or breaking one’s back and severing the spinal cord. If all you wanted was some general impairment, then I would just tell you to wait. The aging process itself robs us naturally of our ability to see, to hear and to move around comfortably. However, you indicate that those inflicted with this malady must also deal with a particular specificity regarding the desired impairment. Is it not all rather selfish? Our bodies are often not what we would want them to be. I would like to be thin and athletic, but I also like to eat too much. Short and tall men and women can do little to change their actual height. Indeed, I have known many people over the years who prayed that they might be healed from the very afflictions you describe.

I still recall a 20-something year old Marine who had a training accident and ended up permanently paralyzed from the neck down. He was supposed to get married the following month and his fiancee was at his bedside. Unable to perform the marital act, they would never be able to get married in the Church. All their dreams and hopes were lost in a moment. Many loved ones run away from those who become invalids. Such situations always leave me at a loss as to what to say. How could someone want that? The pity that good people give such victims becomes its own kind of poison. I have wiped the bottoms and washed the bodies of people so afflicted. They are embarassed and apologetic. But there is nothing for it. I am reminded of a line from an old Beatles song, “I get by with a little help from my friends.” That is indeed the truth. Speaking as a priest, our greatest friend is Jesus.

I do not know if pretending is a sin or not, I would doubt it. However, while it may give immediate relief, it is hardly a long-term solution to the anxiety you describe. The Catholic Church sees the human person in an integralist way. People these days mistreat the body. The implication is that the person is a mind or soul locked in a mechanical body that one manipulates. The Church rejects this view as well as the physicalism on the other extreme. The human person is a spiritual-corporeal composite. The unity is so intense that we can say that “You are your body.” This is not a crude materialism, but a recognition of our mortal nature. Even our views about the afterlife include the resurrection and glorification of the body. We are not angelic spirits and we will not remain disembodied souls forever after death. We find hints as to what this glorified body will be like in the mystery of Christ’s resurrection and Mary’s assumption. Our eternal destiny speaks to the importance of the human body in the present. If men and women did not have bodies they would have neither the desire nor the need for marriage or the sexual life. Our physical nature gives us many joys: eating, drinking, a leisurely nap, and so much else. Our bodies are God’s gifts to us.

The desire for an impaired body would seem to violate the gratitude we should show God for the gift of health and physical integrity. Does the person who has sight but would prefer blindness not curse the divine gift itself? If God gives us two hands to do his work, who are we to act as if we have only one?

I no longer have the body I would most desire. Arthritus causes almost crippling pain in my back and even pain relief medicine can only do so much. My eyesight is poor and daily medicine regulates my bloodpressure. I become easily winded upon walks. Here too, the mental image of myself and my abilities does not reflect the reality that harshly faces me every day. The difference between us is that I have a rather positive mental image of myself that no longer reflects my physical condition. You have a negative mental image for yourself even though the body is in actuality not so handicapped. In both cases, we have to live with the discrepency. We need to accept who we are, no matter what our shortcomings or disappointments.

There is no real benefit to being handicapped. It is a challenge that we can overcome or deal with, but as we see in the Scriptures, most people pray to be whole. No one asked Jesus in the Gospels to be made blind, or deaf, or crippled.

Well, these are my quick ramblings, nothing scholarly, just a quick evening reflection.

Again, you have my prayers, Claire. God bless you!

Father Joe

Sean – October 29, 2006

Dear Father Joe,

Thank you for your response to Claire. I am the owner of the site transabled.org, and must admit to not being religious. This probably explains part of my incomprehension of some points you made. Please understand I’m not trying to be argumentative, just to better understand your comments.

God made us the way we are. For transabled individuals it is not a question of *choice* to feel the way we do, no more than it is a question of choice or lifestyle to be gay. It is an integral part of who I am, and I dearly wish I didn’t feel the way I do. So, God gave us the body we have, but one would assume he also gave us the brain connections that make us feel the way we are. Of course, there is something about free-will, but if BIID could be willed away, I’d have been free of it decades ago!

People pray to be taller/etc. But they can’t do anything about it. Well, some do, getting breast implants, etc. For most of these people, it’s also not a question that consumes them all day (and night) long. Whereas we *could* do something about it, given the options. I am sorry you have arthritis, my late wife (who was a paraplegic) also did, and was barely able to pick up a pen towards the end. I understand both issues related to paralysis and arthritis. Were there a relatively simple “cure” to arthritis, would you not take it? Is it against God’s will to heal yourself if it is possible?

I see the body/mind as a whole, and cannot separate the mental well being from the physical well being. To me, it only makes sense that if I have a cancer that will kill me, I will remove the cancer, cut the affected limb. In a way, BIID is such a cancer, of the mind. And to become a paraplegic would address the cancerous problem. This is a conceptual problem I have with the approach of “don’t damage the body God gave you”, because I trully believe that one cannot separate body and mind, at least not on *this* plane. One must look at the entire package to define “optimal”.

It was about ten years ago that a paraplegic friend of mine pointed out the irony. She’d do anything to walk again, whereas I’d do anything to be unable to walk. She said that in many ways, that fact alone made our experiences rather similar in a way. I couldn’t disagree with her, yet, that doesn’t make it any easier.

Again, thank you for taking the time to respond to Claire.

Sincerely,

Sean

Catholicism acknowledges that creation is good and that human nature is as well, in addition to being supplemented by divine grace because of the Incarnation and the gifts that God gives believers in the Church. This is different from certain non-Catholic Christian perspectives that see the human being as essentially bad for whom salvation is juridically imposed but without any real transformation or conversion.

Nevertheless, we do believe that both human and natural evil inflict us because of the primordial rebellion. God offers us hope and redemption, but the negative consequences of sin upon nature and in the hearts of men is still with us. Thus, apart from any moral judgment upon the person, the Church would still contend that a person with same-sex attraction suffers from a disorientation that should not be pursued. Similarly, while “transabled individuals” may not always be such through choice, and thus are culpable of no sin in this regard; nevertheless, any effort at physical mutilation would be judged morally wrong.

God is indeed our Creator, but the harmony we would desire in the world does not exist. Children sometimes die from spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, others may be severely retarded (I knew one child who lived eight months without a brain), and countless people are born with serious mental and physical defects. Such things are permitted by God’s passive will, but not his active will; although, all things will mysteriously work out in his divine providence. Consequently, just because we are born or develop a certain way does not mean that God would want us to enshrine a defect as something that is neutral or beneficial, even if God himself can draw good out of evil.

You say yourself that you wish you did not suffer from BIID, and so there is already a pejorative admission. This does not mean that you can will the problem away. I have known some homosexuals who have successfully changed their orientation to heterosexual and they seem happy; however, most of the gays I have met have been unable to do so. The ones in the Courage Movement see their situation as a witness to faith as they live out chaste lives of service for others. Their struggle remains and short of some medical cure or miracle, they are as they will be for the rest of their lives.

As for cures, they should not in themselves entail a moral evil. My leg might hurt, but cutting it off would be a rather extreme way of trying to deal with the problem. A cure for Alzheimer’s would be a great blessing, but not if we have to kill unborn children to do so. Relieving the pain of arthritis and restoring full mobility would be a godsend, but not if it damaged another faculty like my liver or kidneys.

As for the body/mind connection, the soul itself is informed by matter. What we are really talking about here is the connection between the brain and the rest of the body. It seems to me that the problem here is in the brain, not in some other body part or in our mobility. It may be that surgical or chemical intervention is warranted, but the technique has not yet shown itself and that it should focus upon the brain itself and not chopping off limbs.

The late Christopher Reeves also demonstrated the terrible cost of keeping paraplegic people alive and how it is often a losing battle with infections, respiratory ailments, etc. Body mutilation and euthanasia for people suffering from BIID would all fall under the commandment, “Thou shall not kill.”

Anyway, no offense taken, I knew there might be disagreement. I am just offering a priest’s perspective.

Take care, Sean,
Father Joe

Claire – October 29, 2006

Dear Fr. Joe,

Thank you for your response! I appreciate your taking the time out to help this strange little marginal community of ours. Your prayers are appreciated. I just have a few comments:

>It is unclear to me why my perspective is required.

Because I might have missed something! :o)

> It falls under the sin of mutilation.

But circumstances alter cases. Take the case of a tubal pregnancy. You remove the diseased tube (with the fetus in it) because the intent of the operation is to remove the diseased tube, NOT to end a life, and the abortion of the fetus is just an unhappy side-effect of this action. This is allowed in the Church, is it not? In the case of BIID, your intent isn’t to mutilate the person, your intent is to counter an otherwise incorrigible neurological(?) problem in the brain. Can’t some parallel be drawn there, for the treatment of BIID? Researchers at the University of San Diego are now studying BIID from a neurological, as opposed to a psychological viewpoint. They believe there are actual, physical, neurological differences in the brain of a person with BIID. Were that to be proven true, would that change anything? We’d now have a biological cause of BIID, and then would surgery not fall under “therapeutic medical reasons?”

> Mental or physical illnesses can both incapacitate the person and make it impossible to fulfill the duties of our state of life.

> There is no real benefit to being handicapped.

Many of us were drawn at an early age to have close contact with people with disabilities. I myself have seen first-hand the consequences of long-term paraplegia, to the point of death. It isn’t pretty. But that’s why this is a mental illness, because it’s not logical. Most of us aren’t under any delusions that life would be physically easier. Only that we’d be free of a pathological obsession. And, given the choice, we’d RATHER HAVE A HEALTHY MIND THAN A HEALTHY BODY (caps for emphasis, not for shouting :o) ). They are both God’s gifts to us. My mental illness makes it, while not quite impossible, very difficult to fulfill the duties of my state in life, and certainly impairs my ability to do so with any great success. Why should we have to choose the body over the mind? Is the body more important than the mind? You can’t change the brain to fit the body, but you can change the body to fit the brain, and evidence tells us that this is, in fact, effective.

> Is it not all rather selfish? Our bodies are often not what we would want them to be.

I want to be thinner, but I don’t obsess over it. It doesn’t make me miserable or unable to think straight because I can’t get my mind off of it. I want to be free of hearing loss, but these thoughts don’t consume nearly every waking moment. There is a fundamental difference between my wanting to be thinner or to hear better, and my wanting to be a paraplegic. The former two are normal everyday human desires. The latter is a pathological obsession going back to age 6; that’s 30 years now, Father. I don’t see how someone with a mental illness could be termed selfish. It’s not logical, it’s just obsessive and uncontrollable — until you get the surgery, according to those who have actually done it.

Again, thanks Father Joe for your time. Now you and your readers have seen yet another strange variation of the human condition, one you probably never imagined possible! You don’t have to spend any more of your time answering this, I can imagine the demands on your time. In any case, it’s all a moot point because the surgery is not yet available. But there are many teams around the world right now studying BIID from several different viewpoints, and the day may come when the Church is called on to respond to this new challenge in medical ethics.

God bless you,
Claire

Dear Claire,

Mutilation is defined in Catholic morality as the unnecessary deforming of the human body. Obviously the removal of a cancerous organ, a gangrenous limb, etc would be permissible. Mental disconnects with the body would not make an amputation legitimate. Thus, it falls under mutilation.

As for the example you offer, it is not without its own controversy. What you describe in regard to a tubal pregnancy is not quite correct. Doctors are instructed by Catholic ethicists to do what they can to transfer the unborn child from the fallopian tube to the uterus. This is often not successful and only a few hospitals are equipped to even try. In some cases pregnant mothers are kept in a hospital bed throughout the pregnancy until the child is large enough for possible survival with medical assistance outside the mother. If the tube itself is diseased, as with cancer, or even the womb itself suffers a malady, then surgery might be permitted under the principle of double-effect. However, the intention and the act itself has be morally neutral or good. In this instance, the concern is the cancer, and the “immediate” unfortunate consequence is the loss of the child.

The Church would condemn the mutilation or crippling of the body as an evil act, even though the personal culpability might be mitigated somewhat by mental illness. Any doctor that assisted in such a procedure would commit mortal sin. Such mutilation is also condemned in cases where people suffer from gender misidentification and procure so-called sex-change operations.

If the intent is to “counter the otherwise incorrigible neurological problem in the brain” then it must be the brain itself that requires treatment and not the handicapping of some other corporeal appendage or power. Surgery might be warranted, but it would be brain surgery, not the subtraction of arms and legs or the breaking of a person’s spinal cord.

Really, the situation can become quickly silly. What if your body image is a head and torso without arms and legs? Would we store such a person in a box and take him out for supper? How would he make a living, displayed as a side-show freak? Who is going to feed and care for such people? If a person deliberately has his spinal cord broken, why should society pay the millions of dollars to sustain such a life when others who are so because of tragic accidents need the limited funds? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you want your eyes and ears removed…maybe you want to be skinned alive…might there be no end to the madness? Therapeutic treatment cannot make evil acts legitimate. We are not permitted a utilitarian approach where an evil is condoned for some purported good.

It is true that mental and physical illnesses can incapacitate a person. But such a situation must be tolerated when the only relief or alternatives seem to be immoral acts. One might argue that euthanasia is the surest way to end a suffering person’s pain; however, it is still murder. Sometimes there is nothing for it except suffering. The Christian embraces the Cross and finds something redemptive in it.

Further, why is it that you suppose that the crippling or amputation of an element of the body might bring an end to a pathological obsession. The mental illness would still be there, even if it no longer offered the mental and emotional trial that it once did. You can have cancer and sometimes feel quite well. All you would be doing is masking the real problem and adding new physical challenges.

As for selfishness, it can afflict anyone, even those with mental diseases. No one can want the life of an invalid and not be somewhat selfish and self-absorbed. We were put here to serve and not to be served. Catholicism in particular does not see suffering as a waste, and those with BIID are no doubt challenged by the Lord to add their crosses to the Cross of Jesus. It might not seem fair, but life is not fair. There is an old saying, “Man was made to suffer.” It sounds fatalistic, but it is also quite true. We are not promised perfect happiness in this world, just in the next.

This disease was not one about which I had given much thought, but it is a question that Church ethicists have discussed over the years. Catholicism would never approve of crippling the body for the sake of a person’s mental image. I suspect what we shall see is more work on the mystery of the brain itself.

God bless you,
Father Joe

POSTSCRIPT: I ADDED PHOTOS, MOSTLY OF BROKEN DOLLS AND MANNEKINS FOR THIS POST, AND YET, THE SUBJECT MATTER IS SO TROUBLING THAT EVEN THESE PICTURES MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE. IT IS DEFINITELY A MATTER THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO PRAYER.

Filed under: Religion | 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

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?

Bishop Katharine Schori – No Hope for Catholic & Anglican Reunion

Posted on June 20, 2006 by Father Joe

Katharine Jefferts Schori, the new leading bishop in the American Episcopal Church is a former Roman Catholic. Her parents brought her into the Episcopal Church when she was “not quite nine” and she attended a Catholic convent school maintained by the Sacred Heart Nuns. She is fluent in Spanish and active in outreach to Hispanics, pretty much all who were formerly Catholic. She is a liberal who voted for the consecration of the openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, three years ago. She also supports the blessing of same-sex unions. She is a scientist, only ordained a priest in 1994.

Victoria Garvey, one of two sergeants-at-arms who escorted Schori to the convention floor after the election, said: “My heart stopped. A number of people — men and women — were weeping. . . . I’m a former Roman Catholic, and part of the reason I made the switch was over women in the church. Thirty years after finally approving women’s ordination, we now have a woman bishop presiding.”

Schori tells a reporter for THE LIVING CHURCH FOUNDATION: “My parents brought me into the Episcopal Church in early 1963, in conjunction with their own move out of the Roman Catholic tradition. This was before Vatican II had had any impact on parish life, and as a fifth-grader, my awareness of the difference was of language (from Latin to English) and of community and style (large and faceless to small and intimate). My understanding of faith in this new community was increasingly about the ability to ask questions. The vicar was a remarkable gatherer of people and artistic gifts into warm, challenging, and effective community. I would summarize my experience of the shift as from a religion of prohibition to one of invitation.”

*****

The 75th General Convention has gone and done it. When I was young I was full of hope that the division between the Catholic and Anglican communities would be healed. But there is no chance now. A few churches and individuals may continue to seek reunion; but as a whole, it cannot happen. The Episcopal church is now solidly in the rank of liberal Protestantism and has abandoned its Catholic and traditional roots. While claiming Scripture, they have dismissed the pattern that goes back to Christ in his selection of men as his apostles, the first bishops and priests of the Church. They have also dismissed clear Scriptural messages where we find divine positive law about such matters like the indissolubility of marriage, the evil of fornication, adultery and homosexual acts. Indeed, with one act, the consecration of Gene Robinson, many of these borders were trespassed; afterall, he had left his wife to live with his gay lover. His consecration was an indirect but real act of approbation toward these evils.

The trouble with a female bishop, from the Catholic perspective, is the fact that we do not see any concrete biblical or traditional evidence that it is God’s will. Pope John Paul II even went so far as to say that we do not have the authority to ordain women. Thus, if the ordinations of men as priests in the Anglican churches were in doubt (because of Orthodox and Old Catholic participation) and in most cases rejected, certainly the sacramental reality is going to be denied completely in regard to women.

There are no priestesses in the Christian religion.

Any priests ordained by women bishops will not be priests themselves.

Any Masses offered by any of them will not be the sacrifice of Christ and will not be the Real Presence!

She calls Catholicism the “religion of prohibition” and in doing so devalues the riches of the Catholic faith, many of which were once shared, even if in a lesser and defective way, in her own Protestant communion. The Church cannot tolerate anything and everything. The last convention, the only moral question upon which the Episcopalians could agree was about a prohibition toward landmines. About everything else they had compromised with a pagan and/or secular modernity.

The new bishop calls homosexuality a gift, not a sin.

Can there be any doubt that she will continue to support the gay agenda and the ordination of openly gay priests and bishops?

The Episcopal churches have already stepped aside regarding the most important issue of the day, abortion.

When asked about the alienation that many feel about her selection, she simply spoke about it as the personal problem of “not knowing another human being.” But of course, the problem in conscience for many conservative Anglicans is that they have Catholic and traditional views on ministry and morality. The problem is not something that a greeting and handshake will resolve.

When asked about the tension with communities that do not accept women priests, her answer was not only flippant but targeted the Catholic discipline. She called the priest an “actor” which is already a far cry from the Roman Catholic view of the priest as an “alterchristus”. A theatrical actor pretends but the Catholic priest at the altar really is offering the sacrifice of Calvary “in the person of Christ, head of the Church.” It is this point of identification which is at the heart of the Catholic dispute with Anglican priestesses. Women cannot stand at the altar as Christ, the bridegroom of the Church. Anyhow, she moves the question first to so-called “pastoral underpinnings” and then quickly dismisses critics of women priests as donatist heretics who put too much emphasis on the holiness and attributes of the actor.

A sacrament, including Holy Orders, requires legitimate MATTER. The Catholic Church has determined that such is a “male” human being. Donatism does not speak to the question of proper matter or intention. Donatism implies that the minister is already validly ordained. The heresy of Donatism is in regard to moral failings and the efficacy of the sacraments. The Church responded to this rigorism by stipulating that the efficacy of the sacraments did not depend upon the worthiness of the minister but on Christ. Therefore, even a priest in mortal sin can hear Confessions and offer the Mass. The Lord protects the sacraments for his people.

Schori would extend the heresy of Donatism to those who would exclude women from the priesthood because they are not men. Good try, but such reasoning does not fly. Neither can it be applied to the dubious priesthood of others in the Anglican communion. Being female is not a moral failing and neither is it an accidental. Men and women are not utterly interchangeable. Our gender touches the core of our identity.

It is unfortunate that Episcopalians cannot always know if their priests are valid or not, but such confusion is not due to Donatism. The Catholic Church makes no claim against their degree of holiness and individual faithfulness (where true Donatists take offense); all we are saying is that if you are not a priest then you cannot offer that work priests are empowered to do.

Elements of discipline like celibacy, poverty and obedience are often required of candidates, but failure in regard to promises and the moral life do not negate the sacraments. While women cannot be validly ordained, homosexual men (given that they are chaste and celibate) can be ordained. However, the question still arises as to whether it is a good or prudential idea. Even homosexual priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church might be valid, given the faith to which they subscribe is sufficiently Catholic and the ordaining bishop or bishops possess apostolic succession. At one time it was pretty clear that all orders in the Anglican churches had become null-and-void and that apostolic succession had been lost. However, given the presence and participation of Old Catholics and the Orthodox at episcopal consecrations, and the defection of Catholic clergy into the Episcopal churches, the matter is less clear today.

The breakup of the Anglican communion is taking place before our eyes. Some are seeking primatial support from Africa and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth Texas has appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other prelates of the Anglican Communion for another primate to have pastoral oversight over the diocese. (However, the Anglican Church in England is also rushing quickly away from its ancient Christian roots and values and practices.) I would hope that some would finally come to their senses and call upon their best friend, Pope Benedict XVI. There are already Anglican-Usage parishes in operation and there is talk that the Pope might even make the concession of lifting the celibacy discipline for future clergy in their churches after reunion. The presence of married clergy in the Catholic Church who were formerly Episcopalian priests has paved a road to this eventuality.

But the tragedy remains that there will be no worldwide reunion. Things have gone too far now. It cannot be fixed. I am not dispairing of the Holy Spirit, just a realist in regard to how people can place secular values over Church tradition and the Gospel. We thought we might have the glass glued back together but then it was deliberately fractured again and again. All we have are splinters now.

Schori opposed the Winsor Report released by the Lambeth Commission on Communion which suggested that the ECUSA make amends and say it was sorry for the trouble caused by electing an openly gay bishop. The report would also have established a moratorium on ordaining homosexual bishops and blessing same-sex couples. Her election is essentially telling the rest of the Anglican communion, NO DEAL!

Schori’s consecration as presiding bishop will be celebrated at the Washington National Cathedral. I wonder if the Catholic and Orthodox prelates will stay away? I hope so, because their presence would only lend credence to a terrible lie– about the health of a church community and about a so-called bishop.

DISCUSSION

And she is also rather creative:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51325

FATHER JOE:

The nominating committee considered her qualifications. Now, it looks like she fabricated a few credentials.

She noted herself as the “pastoral associate and dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology in Corvallis, Oregon (1994-2000).” The trouble is that no such school of higher learning appears to exist. It turns out, or so she says, this was her name for the adult education program operated by the local parish, over which she was not even rector.

She also wrote that she was the “priest in charge of El Buen Samaritano, Corvallis, Oregon,” which turns out the be the Spanish-speaking parishioners of Good Samaritan Church.

Goodness! She certainly fattened her resume with exaggeration and purposeful deception!

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4536

PATRICK:

As a member of a rapidly-growing Episcopal congregation and a former Roman Catholic, I am thrilled at the consecration of our new Presiding Bishop, but I also know what a rough road she has ahead of her. She is a woman of God, plain and simple. She is perceived as a threat to so many because she is a woman of God who is leading. Her mere presence as Bishop challenges existing hierarchies. But her great faith and intelligence will lead her and the faithful, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic Church has been very good to the Episcopal Church in recent decades. Half of our parish’s growing membership is formerly Roman Catholic, and we expect that trend to continue. So please by all means keep your hearts and minds closed to the real working of the Holy Spirit in the 21st century, and send your members our way! We welcome them with open hearts.

KATHY SCHORI:

[Note that I have almost no doubt that this person is an imposter!]

Hahaha!

Yes, it is truly the work of the Spirit!

Let the superstitious Roman Church insist upon its cookie worship, we know that fellowship is the most central and Jesus’ words should not be taken too literally.

Let the patriarchal Roman Church deny women their role as priests, we are more enlightened today by psychology and sociology over the chauvinists who are slaves of male tradition, no matter if it does go back to Jesus or not.

Let the bigoted Roman Church persecute gay, lesbian and transgendered peoples, we know that anal and oral sex is right and fun, and that no one, not even that gay-basher St. Paul, has a right to say anything different.

Let the bigoted Roman Church alienate the divorced and remarried, we are happy to fill our pews with your adulterers, fornicators and perverts.

Let the Republican Party-controlled Roman Church scream and holler about abortion, we respect people and the hard choices they make, yes even if it means killing unwanted babies.

We make no argument against contraception, either, and if most papists were honest they would leave the Roman whore and join the Episcopal Church where we have beautiful rituals but never take ourselves too seriously, especially in the bedroom.

Save the whales, ban landmines, these are the real Christian issues of our day!

Yes brother Patrick, we welcome the papists to our Episcopal communion.

May the Spirit of the World lead more and more to our ranks.

Amen, I mean, Awomen!

FATHER JOE:

What’s going on here? Are you guys serious?

I hardly need to make a rebuttal.

Such attitudes might drive the more clear thinking souls back to the Catholic Church.

Goodness me.

PAUL R:

I would like to congratulate you on this excellent article, Father Joe, which is particularly valuable to Episcopalians/Anglicans because it gives a view from the outside. You have hit the main point on the head. The Episcopal Church is forsaking its roots in Holy Scripture and Tradition and becoming increasingly “Post-Christian” and neo-pagan.

Also, while you are correct that the idea of the priest as an “actor” playing the role of Jesus Christ is inaccurate, it may be useful in explaining what I understand to be one of the significant theological reasons for opposing the ordination of women to the priesthood: a woman, no matter how talented an actress she may be, would be “miscast” in the “role” of Jesus Christ in a movie or play about Him. How much more unsuitable would she be as an Alter Christus (or as the Orthodox might put it as a living icon of Christ at the altar)?

Pray for me, Father, as I pray for you.

FATHER JOE:

You have my prayers.

JOHANNIM:

It was only a matter of time since Pope Henry 8th ripped an unwilling English people away from the Catholic Church that the Anglican/Episcopal church would start breaking up. The Anglican church in 2007 is a mere shell of what it once was. Reactionaries, revisionist of the worst ilk now control this faith group from London to Washington from Sydney to Ottawa. The Anglicans in the developing world will have none of it and at their last meeting Orthodox Anglican bishops even refused to share communion with neo Marxist fanatics & pro homosexual bishops from Europe & North America. Whole parishes are returning to the Roman Catholic Church and the trend is increasing. There is even an Anglican rite growing in popularity in the Catholic Church as more and more Anglicans & their priests leave that church. With the advent of Pope Benedict 16th and the recent motu proprio SUMMARUM PONTIFICUM and the resurgence of the ancient divine liturgy often referred to as the Tridentine aka Latin Mass whose roots go back to the 3rd & 4th century of the common era there is a tremendous increase in attendance throughout Europe of (predominantly) Catholic youth attending the ancient Mass, as the Novus Ordo declines millions are returning to the Roman Catholic Church. The same phenomenon is occurring in North America in that where the ancient Latin Mass is offered the churches are literally packed to the rafters with predominately young people. To be an Anglican these days means to believe in anything you want even to denial of Christ’s divinity. The glue that kept the Anglicans together for 400 yrs. is dissolving and that glue was polite civility between the warring factions of Henry the 8th schismatic church. No longer does low, broad or high church Anglicans tolerate each other. The Anglican church today and it’s offshoots like Methodism would even disgust Karl Marx & Adolf Hitler. It’s all very sad. Shalom.

ROBERT HAWKINS:

Roman Church controlled by “Republicans?” The Catholic Church in the United States is overwhelmingly Democrat. Give me a break.

MISTER SMITH:

First of all the theology that the presiding bishop is wrong!! Of course I am not surprised that the Church will grow!! Most people want to her what they want to her. Same sex marriage, the homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable, she might is well ordain people who steal!! Why? They believe they are born that way; let’s not take that from them too.

Filed under: Bishops, Church, Commandments, Ecumenism, Morality, News, Priestesses, Religion, Women Priests | 6 Comments »