The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
While it might seem that “conservative” clergy, to borrow a political adjective, are resentful toward the laity who “would dare” reflect upon priestly celibacy; such is not really the case. Our ire or hurt is only aroused when there is a lack of appreciation or thankfulness for the very real and substantive sacrifice made by priests on their behalf. Our gift of celibacy, enabled by divine grace, is offered to God so that we might more completely and intimately belong to the people we serve. It seems to me that there are two erroneous extremes: the first as a dissent or dismissal of celibacy as wrong or ill-opportune and the second as a cold indifference. It is frequently proposed that priests who stumble regarding celibacy struggle under a sexual immaturity or impeded development (although these critics often wrongly clamor for earlier sexual acting-out as the preventative).
Indeed, I read one researcher who taught that the crime of child molestation was symptomatic of stunted psychosexual development; having retarded their own maturation at childhood, their preoccupation remained with children. Not being a social scientist, I cannot say for sure if this last assessment be true. It seems to me that the actual culprit is a grossly misaligned sexual orientation. Men who abuse children are both sick and criminals.
While the American Psychiatric Association and liberal politicians would grant homosexuality the status of normalcy; the Church deems such attraction as disorientation and the commission of subsequent acts to be wrong and sinful. It may be that certain homosexuals entered the priesthood to disguise their attraction; however, the Holy See has judged homosexuals as unfit candidates for holy orders. There is much worry, even if unsaid or denied, that most clerical child abuse cases were homosexual in character.
Consecrated men who fall with adult women also sin grievously, but according and not as opposed to nature. Despite this, especially in light of criminal allegations against pederasts, certain bishops now wrongly punish such clergy as if they had broken civil law or endangered the innocent. While no molester of children can ever return to ministry; the man who stumbles with a consenting adult woman may need fraternal correction and prayer more than clinical exile for treatment or forced laicization. The priesthood of this man might be salvaged, yes, even if a child is the fruit of a forbidden liaison. It comes down to authentic penance and reform from the priest and how much God’s people are willing to forgive.
There are a number of excellent books written by priests about the value of celibacy; and yet, the public seems to give a heightened weight to criticism of celibacy from either fallen-away priests or from critical laity. Why is this? Given society’s addiction to all things sexual, heterosexual and homosexual, I suspect it is because celibacy is viewed as either a fiction or as an aberrant perversion. The fact that it is a natural lifestyle and one chosen by St. Paul and our Lord is readily dismissed. I recall many years ago taking weekly communion to the elderly Catholic residents of Judiciary House in NW Washington, DC. The maintenance man, himself a senior citizen, saw my collar and remarked that we both wore uniforms. Making small talk, he asked, “Is it true?” “What?” I returned. Incredulously, he queried, “Is it true that you guys never get some?” It was not the kind of question I expected, given that we were standing on a public sidewalk in front of the building where he worked. Pedestrians were passing by on every side of us. I repeated his question, trying to figure how to respond. Did I misunderstand him? No, he did indeed mean sex. I answered, “Yes, it is true; we take promises of perpetual celibacy.” He shook his head. He could not believe it. He walked away unconvinced and mumbled to himself, “How can you live and not get some? A man has to get some? I know I have to get some.” If such average working men were dubious about this a quarter of a century ago, today many would accuse priests of hypocrisy and outright deception. This incident happened before the floodgates opened with the so-called pedophile crisis. The failure of a few has damaged the witness of many. Celibacy, once respected as a sacrifice signifying devotion to God and to the service of his people, is now regarded as expendable or worse, as a sign of sexual deviancy and secret sin. We have our work cut out for us if we hope to correct the false label stamped upon the celibate priesthood. Celibacy is very personal and private to the priest; nevertheless, we must be courageous and extroverted in demonstrating both its viability and utility.
Statement of Archdiocese of Washington in Response to the Finalization of the HHS Mandate
June 28, 2013 – After almost two years and over 400,000 public comments, the government today finalized the HHS mandate. We have begun to review the 110-page final rule to determine whether or not it addresses our longstanding concerns. Our review and analysis of the complex rule should help us answer important questions concerning who determines which institutions are religious and, therefore, exempt, who is forced to have this coverage, and who must provide it. The new regulations are being closely studied and a more comprehensive statement will follow at a later date.
Timothy Cardinal Dolan: “Although the Conference has not completed its analysis of the final rule, some basic elements of the final rule have already come into focus.” He said the U.S. Conference of Bishops “has not discovered any new change that eliminates the need to continue defending our rights in Congress and the courts.” He argues that the HH Mandate still threatens the Church’s ability “to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.”
A FEW PERSONAL COMMENTS
We are still waiting anxiously for the response of the U.S. Bishops to the latest accommodations in the HHS Mandate from the Obama administration. The deadline of August is rapidly coming upon us and what happens next could be devastating to our hospitals, schools and charity works. It troubles me that the Catholic Health Association acts unilaterally without regard to the decisions of the USCCB. The latest version of the mandate exemption is being studied by our shepherds and yet the CHA has already come out in support of the measure. This is not new given that they supported it even when the bishops did not a year ago. I am just a poor priest, but my reading of the mandate makes me think that this latest revision is merely another round of the shell game we suffered before. There is still nothing on the table for commercial operations that have a mission paralleling the Church’s. Individual Catholics and those having businesses must participate. There is the plight of notable Catholic organizations like EWTN and the Knights of Columbus. The administration staunchly insists that employees MUST have free birth control pills and coverage for abortifacients and sterilization. When it comes to the question as to who will pay, the government is creative but consistent: whoever pays, it will NEVER be the person who wants sex but not pregnancy. The administration will officially redefine the meaning of the marital act, bloodying the hands of all with the sacrifice of innocent children. Saying that we will not have “to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage” is a legal fiction.
Distinctions are being made that are somewhat hard to follow. First, there is FULL EXEMPTION from the contraceptive mandate. This is in regard to Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” Second, there is the NON-EXEMPTION in reference to non-profit faith-based groups not directly affiliated with the Church, such as certain hospitals, schools and charities. These groups are being offered an “accommodation.” Third, there is NON-EXEMPTION with no accommodation. This would include large apologetic efforts, television, radio stations, and even small operations like a privately own Catholic gift shop. This group would be treated as any secular operation and would have to fully comply with the mandate.
It is thrown into the faces of the bishops that most Catholic women have used or are using artificial contraception. In other words, the administration is saying that Catholic women are more in sync with President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius than with their bishops. How can the bishops then speak on their behalf? The bishops counter that even if all lay Catholics dissented, they would still be obliged to uphold Christian faith and morals. The Affordable Care Act will deliver contraceptive services, including those prescribed by a medical provider, “without charging cost sharing, like a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible.” Organizations like Planned Parenthood must view this as the ultimate anti-Christmas; instead of a special birth, they will celebrate the avoidance of birth with a fortune in free-bees. Of course, nothing is really free. Someone always pays. Already the agenda of the HHS on behalf of so-called reproductive or preventative services, as well as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered health issues, is costing the American tax-payer billions of dollars. The 2013 HHS budget is $80.1 billion!
The HHS has not budged an inch. It is dedicated to the promulgation of free contraceptive services without cost-sharing while posturing that concessions have been made to non-profit religious organizations. But saying it does not make entirely it so. Even if it were completely true and reserved to non-profits, it would demand that those who operate for-profit religious operations must forfeit their religious liberty and rights of conscience. That is a dangerous and despicable double or even triple-standard. Churches are fully exempt, other non-profit religious organizations have an accommodation and for-profit companies (even religious ones) have no protection at all. The Church should speak out for her rights and for those of others, both organizations and individuals. Concessions from tyrants when others suffer, as we have seen in Latin and Central America, can taint the witness of the Church and make us bedfellows with the oppressor.
In any case, reserving ourselves to religious non-profits, we are told that churches that object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds would “not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage for their employees or students.” This sounds good. Similarly, we are told that the definition of a religious employer no longer insists upon the following details: (1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) Primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and (3) Primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets. This seems to answer many of the concerns of Cardinal Dolan and Wuerl. But wait a minute, then are the contraceptive services still available and who pays? Is this administration really going to sit back and allow a large number of Church employees to go without contraceptive coverage? I suspect that soon after the mandate takes effect, select people who work for the Church in various capacities will come forward in a staged manner to demand the “same rights” that are given other Americans. The convoluted and unclear language will be exploited and the Church will be further painted as anti-woman and anti-choice.
When speaking about non-exempt non-profit religious organizations, we are told: “Under an accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, separate payments for contraceptive services are available for women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization.” Who makes these separate payments? Is it the insurance carrier itself? These self-certified groups must notify the health insurance issuer and these plans “must then provide separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. As explained in the final rules, issuers will find that providing such payments is cost-neutral.” Cost neutral, are they serious? If such were really the case then we could have all insurance carriers supply contraceptives with no business, government and employee co-pay. But it is not true. Insurance companies are already starting to complain. In any case, some religious non-profits are self-insured. This issue remains unsettled. What insurance carrier is going to come forward and just take upon itself the financial burden of contraceptives without other more traditional coverage and money from health plans? It makes absolutely no business sense!
Money from the religious employer and payments from the employees fund the various health insurance plans. It goes into a single pot. There is a string of probable culpability: money is passed from the Church employer (matched by the employee) to the insurance carrier to the supplier of the offensive services. I suspect that churchmen are arguing about the question of remote culpability. However, this still seems very immediate to me. Even if the funds come only from the employee’s matching contribution— that money originated with the salary/benefits of the employer. Does government expect insurance carriers to come forward and to offer such services without payment or contract selection from the non-profit religious organization? I doubt that will happen. Compliance is literally getting someone else to do the dirty work for us. Cardinal Dolan sees the problem when he states that the revision “seems intended to strengthen the claim that objectionable items will not ultimately be paid for by the employer’s premium dollars,” and yet it remains “unclear whether the proposal succeeds in identifying a source of funds that is genuinely separate from the objecting employer, and if so, whether it is workable to draw from that separate source.” If there is only one plan, then nothing has changed: the religious employer will be funding abortion inducing drugs and contraception. Groups that think this is acceptable are guilty of muddled thinking. Segregating the funds in the books is merely an accounting trick. The moral problem remains.
Self-insured operations will have a “third party administrator” to “provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement.” Okay, we are back to the days of “voodoo economics.” It is argued that no reimbursement is necessary because the decreased pregnancy and birthing expenses will offset the benefits from contraception. Contraceptives may be cheap and yet when that gal from Georgetown paraded her fake $300 plus dollars a month bill for contraception, the administration was cheerleading how expensive it was! They want it both ways and I doubt “for-profit” insurance companies are going to give away anything for free. The money will be moved around, but someone else is going to pay for it. It might be called “administrative fees” or some other euphemism, but it will still be money trading hands for immoral services. Back in 2012, a national survey of pharmacists found that most thought this idea was ridiculous and would not work. The government is going to take fees (a tax) from the insurance issuer which it will return to pay for the contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. They are going to pay them with their own money! Congratulations to the Obama administration, it has invented the perpetual motion machine! But wait a minute, it never worked before, why will it work now? Making payments to one insurance carrier and pretending that magical money will come down from another to pay for the objectionable coverage is ridiculous. It is utterly detached from reality.
Further, who pays the third party administrator who acquires outside coverage? Does that not make him or her part of the religious operation? Is this person not operating for the religious entity or in the Church’s name? The problem of self-insured entities is not cleanly resolved by the change in the mandate. If the insurance agent pays out, even if selected by a third party, is the religious employer still guilty of enabling immoral services?
While not necessarily under the direct supervision of a bishop or religious order, the non-exempt non-profit organizations are an integral element of the Church. The formal dedication of a “third party” administrator to handle the claims for contraception is still a bad solution. It is like someone hiring a hit man and saying, “Take care of the problem but spare me the details. If you are caught, I will deny even knowing you.” We would be hiring someone to sin on our behalf, to maintain clean consciences.
The Church cannot preach and teach one message from the pulpit and in our schools and then do the opposite on such an important matter. Such hypocrisy would bring down any such house of cards. I suspect that some in the government administration precisely want this to come about. They have tried one tactic and now here is another. Throughout there has been one common thread: the redefinition of the Church. The administration wants to redefine the Church as something akin to HHS itself. It wants to compromise our voice and moral witness, converting us to the cause of a secular humanistic modernity. Already, the administration is counting on the fact that most Catholics currently regard the Church as outdated and out-of-touch. This is a test after many years of moral and political passivity.
Speaking about the multiple standards of full exemption, an accommodation and no protection at all, Cardinal Dolan said that the bishops “are concerned as pastors with the freedom of the Church as a whole – not just for the full range of its institutional forms, but also for the faithful in their daily lives – to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.” We are still dealing with the very definition of what constitutes the Church. The Church is not merely a house of worship or our hospitals, schools and affiliated charities. Most of the Church consists of the laity. They are the main ones who seek to evangelize and live out their Christian discipleship in the world. The Pharisees in Christ’s time took for granted that they could satisfy the demands of the Law while the average believer because of the demands of the state and his need for bread could not. Bishops and priests would share the same posture if they preached something that they knew that the government would not allow our Catholic “business” men and women to live out. The laity are also part of the Church, and the largest part at that.
The administration will not allow employees to opt-out of the program. The CHA does not seem to understand this fact. Maybe they do not want to admit it? However, even if such were permitted, it bypasses an important objection, that such a “reproductive choice” is offensive in itself and we do not want it covered for any employee, the spouse or teenaged children. You can say that you “opt-out” but can change your mind at any time. There is one plan and it still includes the offensive services. This opens up several frightful possibilities. Even if the employee is a faithful Catholic, his or her family covered by the family plan remains eligible for the immoral services. With or without parental consent, the employee’s daughters could get free abortion pills or get sterilized under the new plan. I suspect schools will now be able to pass the condom costs, with the addition of birth control pills, to the insurance providers of parents or guardians.
Everything about this provision in the mandate speaks to our hedonistic culture of death. If we really cared about women and families, the emphasis would be upon prenatal care and helping parents with the rising costs of child delivery and health. But it is deemed cheaper to kill children in the womb. Ours is a world that worships the barren womb and medicates against the child as if the baby were a disease. The administration would have people mutilate themselves and take poison to murder the unborn. Instead of rewarding sacrifice and genuine responsibility, we enable selfishness and moral degeneracy.
There has been much talk about the rights and choices of women under the HHS Mandate. Less discussed is the fact that it covers men as well. Male contraceptives are not as readily available, given trust issues, but the word is that more are coming. Further, there is the issue of men having vasectomies. This whole topic just gets more complicated and serious with scrutiny.
The only really good solution would be for the Obama administration to scrap the provision for what they call “preventative” services. If people wanted they could shop around and get coverage in private plans; I suppose the government could subsidize these. Unfortunately, that would mean that tax dollars would continue to be used for offensive services. As soon as morality clauses in religious-based contracts were enforced with firings over revealed abortifacient use or involvement in condom campaigns, I am sure we would be back in the courts. While we do not and cannot police the lives of people who work for us; nevertheless, they parade their sins on Facebook. Returning to the matter at hand, real exemption means that the bishops and Church organizations should have no involvement whatsoever with insurance bookkeeping gimmicks or third party administrators. But the government has a decadent culture on its side and will not bend. Strangely, even some religious people who disagree with the Church on contraception also feel that this is an important religious liberty battle. I have heard the elderly complain that there is not enough money for their life-saving prescriptions; they wonder, how then can the government find money to give compromised women free birth control pills! They cannot believe it. Admittedly, it is quite bizarre. The administration does not even want co-pay with the delivered contraceptives and abortifacients, something one must still do for blood pressure and heart medicine. This illustrates the moral sickness and sex-on-the-brain attitude of the HHS and this administration.
This discussion was posted back in 2008. The word was out that the followers of Miranda were planning to disrupt the Masses and visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States. They did not even make a blip on the news radar. Back in 2012, Miranda predicted that his followers would be transformed with the ability to walk through walls and to go through fire unscathed. The day came and went with no change. Other cults were predicting the end of the world and the final judgment. But we are still here. While he claims to be Jesus (qualified as “the man”), in 2007, he also claimed to be the Antichrist. He defines this in terms of a demarcation between the Jesus of Scripture and his authority in this new manifestation. His followers mark their bodies with a 666 tattoo. It is all very peculiar.
FATHER JOE:
He says the lie begins in Rome, but he attacks all religions. It is almost unbelievable to me that people would worship this man and mark themselves with the sign of the beast. Their tactics are aggression and screaming. He is now setting his eyes on the growing Hispanic population in the U.S. He denies the name “Jesus of Nazareth” and yet it is this is the saving name. He denies great signs and wonders, as well as miracles: such would cater to a strange occult version of atheism and impugn the efficacy of the sacraments. He claims to be the fulfillment of all prophecies, making him the final term of all human history; this usurps the true Lord of his place as the eternal Word through whom all things came to be and by whom all will be consummated and judged. He denies exorcism by asserting that the devil was destroyed and demons do not exist; such a ploy would allow the devils to remain active in hiding with no saving name of Jesus to cast them out. Arguing that there is no sin, his teachings are absolutely sinister. This collapse of any notion of sin, leaving souls powerless and in bondage would make for a brilliant demonic battle plan. He redefines the number of the beast, 666, as the number for himself, a false Christ, and condemns traditional Christians as apostates. He contends that the number 666 means wisdom and prosperity. He associates it with worldly treasure. There is certainly nothing in his teachings about building up treasure for us in the kingdom to come.
Followers mark themselves with 666 / SSS:
The self-proclaimed Son of God:
The cult is spreading around the United States:
ALENA:
¡Jose Luis de Jesús Miranda es dios! Los sacerdotes son rapists. ¡El papa es un mentiroso! Usted no tiene ninguna derecha de hablar contra él. Protestaremos a papa y proclamaremos la verdad. ¡No hay diablo! ¡No hay pecado! Jesús mató al diablo y ha vencido pecado. Hay infierno no a pagar. Podemos tener placer y hacer lo que deseamos. Predestined a la vida eterna. El resto de las religiones deben ser destruidas. ¡Quémese sus catechisms! ¡Siga a Jesús el hombre!
FATHER JOE:
You are very mistaken. He is not God. The devil is defeated but still spiteful. Priests are good and bad, but mostly good. They bring us God’s mercy and the Eucharist. The commandments are still in force. How we live out our discipleship matters. We should avoid sin and do what is right. There is a hell for those who are God’s enemies. You should live in peace with others, despite differences. The Pope is Christ’s vicar, but unlike your Mister Miranda, he does not claim to be God. How can people be so foolish to join the cults? Here it is [the modern world] and people are worshipping a man like the Romans did the emperor in the time of Christ. Your religious leader is not Jesus. You have all been fooled.
PADRE STEVE:
Wow that man needs a lot of prayers… and so do all those who follow him. So many false saviors… very sad! You do a great job with the blog; keep up the good work! God bless!
MISTER 666:
Well, unlike you, MY GOD HAS BLESSED ME WITH EVERY BLESSING (Ephesians 1:3), and also TOOK sin away at the cross (Hebrews 9:26) and is back now with NO RELATION TO SIN (Hebrews 9:28)… He came, to you, LIKE A THEIF IN THE NIGHT because He´s back and you, like Pharisees, don´t see it (or maybe don´t want for it to be seen… since He´s uncovering all the hidden intentions of your heart!).
IT´S A FACT… Not subject to discussion: JOSE LUIS DE JESUS MIRANDA IS THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST!!!! And, no matter whether you like it or not, WILL destroy your religious system with the SPIRIT OF HIS MOUTH aka with His preaching!!! (2 Thessalonians 2:8) is the gospel of Paul now… “too dangerous” for you? Well… to bad!
FATHER JOE:
You call yourself by the number of the beast, 666? You are the one who is judging good priests with a false verdict. You are the hypocritical Pharisee. Now I see that you are a follower of the cult leader Jesús Miranda? Well, that explains it. He and all his disciples have made the sign of the beast their own. You have been very much deceived. Your soul is in great peril.
CORINNE:
Anyone who feels they have to submit to anyone outside of themselves to gain access to God is fooling themselves unknowingly and standing on shaky ground.
God lives within the heart of man. They will not find God by looking for him in the hearts of others, nor will they find God by looking for him in religions. The heart is the True Church, there is no other.
The only way people are going to realize their mistakes however are by first making them….
Why others feel they have to seek their own divinity in God outside of themselves through others I will never be able to grasp, but they are being taken advantage of unknowingly and will soon find this out on their own. They will soon learn that this too is yet another detour leading them away from God. God talks with all his children, not just some….
FATHER JOE:
The notion that divinity can only be found within the individual person is a heretical teaching. We possess the divine spark but such does not exhaust the reality of God. Further, while there are false messiahs, Catholicism has no problem with mediation: in terms of a teaching authority and in worship. None of us come to God alone. As for the Church, the Catholic Church is the community of faith and the great sacrament of salvation established by Christ.
CORINNE:
Also, anytime someone looks to someone over and above God and worships them, it is a cult and its idolatry.
TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC:
As far as this man, God have mercy on his souls and convert him from his evil ways because he is just paving a path directly to Hell for millions of people. How can you be so blind? I don’t get it.
Pius XII claimed that “the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin.” And he is correct as of yet.
CORINNE:
I see the comments here are being taken out of context so I will be moving on and will comment no further. Regarding individual divinity, you’ve twisted my words. We are each a unique individual in God and divine. Take care.
UNKNOWN:
Hey poor idiots— this guy is merely a joke. He gives a disgrace to the name of the Anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ is someone who is powerful and a man full of wisdom. This guy is a filthy scum. It is nice knowing he will burn in hell.
FATHER JOE:
If the title anti-Christ belongs to men other than Nero, then it is a label for any who oppose Christ. If it should also belong to a singular person at the end of human history, then I suspect that…
He, himself, will emerge from a contradictory religious background where selective toleration is preached, applauding one’s own but castigating others and deriding the noble values of our founding fathers;
He will be brilliant and applauded as an orator able to excite and inspire the masses to accept his mission of change;
He will be a person who has forfeited saving grace, redefining sin, not as a violation of God’s will but of one’s own principles;
He will seemingly come out of nowhere;
His rise to power will happen as if overnight;
His fame will far surpass any genuine acts of heroism or virtue;
He will not so much have supporters as worshippers who will chant his name;
Weak people generally regarded as nominally moral will support him even though he will espouse a narcissistic faith and will be explicitly tagged with a 100% pro-abortion and pro-gay rating;
He will be hailed as an icon for a people who were oppressed and will exert a mesmerizing power over the minds and judgments of others;
He will be hailed directly by infidels as the Messiah and indirectly so by fallen-away Christians;
He will come at a time of national unrest and global financial crisis;
He will come at a time when the children of Israel are militarily engaged with those around them and the blood of many innocent people will be spilt;
The whole world will rejoice at his coming and readily accept his authority over them;
He will suffer a grave wound from which he will miraculously recover, albeit through demonic power;
And then, things really get bad!
PEDRO:
If the people of this con-man actually knew the Bible, they would not be so easily brainwashed.
1. For one, in the Bible it states that the numbers 666 will be the mark IN their head or IN their right forehand not the arm. So why does Jose have it on his arm and not encouraging his followers to do what it says in the Bible… maybe because he doesn’t know the Bible? (Revelation 13:16)
2. The Bible also says that the anti-Christ will have a blow to the head. So where is the blow to the head that this man has— nowhere? (Revelation 13:3)
3. The anti-Christ is able to perform miracles. What ones has Jose done— none? (Revelation 13:13-14)
4. And finally, what happens if this con-man dies, what will his followers think?
In the Bible, Jesus states not to follow those who claim to be Christ and that he has said it ahead of time to know not to be deceived (Luke 21:8). Jose first claimed to be Jesus, and now the anti-Christ. Well, this guy is clearly mental. How sad for those who are brainwashed by him. It reminds me of a multi-level marketing company. All I can do is pray for his salvation and to repent before the King comes back.
BOB:
All this talk about Anti-Christ! Doesn’t anybody care about Uncle Apocalypse?
JOLENE:
This man is very dangerous and needs to be stopped! How pathetic that he thinks he’s Jesus Christ? What he needs is to be hospitalized in a mental institution! He could possibly be the Anti-Christ! Being Hispanic, I am very disappointed in the thousands of Hispanic Communities that have chosen to listen to his CR-P! Stop being so ignorant and weak, because that is what you are doing… being WEAK and IGNORANT! Every Christian out there needs to start praying very hard to God and asking him to rid of this insane man! No sin? C’mon now? I cannot be too sure of it… but I am almost positive that this man’s mother did not raise him like this! I am sure she is very, very, disappointed! He has brainwashed thousands of people and has ruined families, marriages, and even spoken bad about our Pope? Anybody that has to say follow me because I’m Jesus is Crazy, Insane, and Ignorant. The people who follow him are just as ignorant as he is!
DALIA:
I REALY WISH THAT THIS GUY CAN PROVE TO ME ABOUT EVERYTHING HE SAYS AND I REALY HOPE THAT HE AND HIS READERS READ THIS AND I HOPE THAT ONE DAY I CAN MEET THIS MAN AND TELL HIM ABOUT THE REAL JESUS CHRIST AND PROVE TO HIM THAT WHAT HE SAID IS WRONG AND TELL HIM ABOUT THE REAL GOD AND THE REAL TURTH AND ABOUT HIS LOVE AND WHO HE REALLY IS.
THIS IS REALY SAD CUZ ITS PEOPLE LIKE THIS THAT MAKES US REAL CHRISTAINS LOOK LIKE A JOKE!
I JUST HOPE THAT HE CAN BE STOPPED BUT NO ONE CAN. ONLY GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT AND ONE DAY WILL REVEAL EVEYTHING HE THINKS HE’S HIDING AND EVERY LIE HE’S BEEN SAYING TO PEOPLE.
I JUST HOPE HE FINDS THAT REAL GOD AND REPENTS FOR EVEYTHING HE’S BEEN SAYING AND DOING CUZ WHEN HE GETS JUDGED BY THE REAL GOD IN HEAVEN HE WILL GO STRAIT TO HELL AND BE BURNED FOR ETERNATY… AND THE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOWED HIM AND KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING IS WRONG!
I WILL PRAY FOR U GUYS AND I TELL U THERE IS NO ONE OUT THERE OR GREATER AND MORE POWERFUL THEN THE GOD IN HEAVEN. THANK U AND GOD BLESS U.
DAN:
I suspect that the guy attracts followers because they want an excuse for continuing in their sins. I doubt if he will attract too much attention & followers.
YASMIN:
To start with, if God would come to earth none of us would be here. And I believe his followers are so blind because they don’t read or understand the bible, this man is putting the bible in his own words and the people that don’t read or understand falls in his lies. If they only knew that all this that’s happening is written in the true word of God! And what’s sad about it is that all of them would be joining him in hell because of their ignorance. This man is just living off of people’s money, if he was the true God he would not need people to offer him cars, companies and their money, because God is the owner of all there is on earth because he made it and he also has the power to rule it whenever he feels like it.
LEEROY:
I’m a shamed to be a human being, knowing that I live in a time that people still believe in idiots like this guy. If you belong to this cult you are the dumbest of the dumb, the weakest of the weak minded and you are slowing down the intellectual evolution of the world. I hope the end is soon so all of these morons can be killed. Maybe the next race will get it right and abolish religion all together. No one represents God, not the pope, or any preacher and especially not this sick man.
FATHER JOE:
Sounds like there is plenty of sickness to go around. You have a very strange hope, indeed. Apart from the rejection of faith, in your anger is there not a terminal hatred of humanity itself? Further, if the race of man should run its course on this planet, why should we think that the intelligent termites (if evolution should dictate) that follow us will fare any better?
DON:
Besides, the number is 616, not 666. It is the number for Nero, and original scrolls have been found at Oxyrinchus showing the number as 6 1 6.
FATHER JOE:
Actually, the number is debated. Certain manuscripts read 616 (3rd century) in reference to the Book of Revelation. It is possible that this is original although most texts give 666. I believe the Latin Vulgate, which is the official Bible of the Catholic Church, gives 666. Some researchers think that the numerology differs because 666 is a code for the Emperor Nero while 616 points to Caligula. Both were certainly anti-Christs in their own right.
JORDYS:
I totally agree with what you guys are saying. This is man is insane, and he uses reverse psychology, and plays around with the Bible’s words to mess with people’s minds. Unfortunately, some people are actually fooled by his clear tricks. However, there must be some action taken soon. This issue will continue to increase, and people will continue following him, leading to the Apocalypse, thus, Armageddon. This man is insane, and it is almost as if he would do exactly anything and everything possible to get what he wants.
BILL:
I would give more credibility to someone who displayed a fraction of the humility set by the example of someone ….say ….like St. Francis. Maybe if we let God deal with this man… he will go away?
MOO:
“The Pope is Christ’s vicar, but unlike your Mister Miranda, he does not claim to be God.” The Catholic Church is claiming that the Pope is unmistaken though, isn’t it?
BRITTANY:
Let us remember the tragedy at Jones Town. 30 years later those images still haunt me. Those people then and these people now are victims. These people are vulnerable and brainwashed; it is only a matter of time before something really bad happens. It is already evident that these people will do anything for their “God” Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda. Let us not forget the horrendous power of an organized cult.
JOSE ARTURO:
Alena….la que escribió el 1er mensaje en este foro. Maldita loca…. Tu si que esta pérdida. Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, es un loco con inteligencia que se esta aprovechando de la situación, ya que en la política no se puede por que es bastante cerrada, pero el tipo es un loco y se aprovecha de las mentes débiles como la de Alena. Que pendejada esta, un tipo que te dice a ti que no hay pecado, que te drogues y hagas orgías con tu tía y abuela. Que pendejada. Todavía hay Indios en America.
FATHER JOE:
Certainly she is deceived about Miranda. He is as you say, a smart fellow who is deliberately taking advantage of others, particularly the gullible. As to the sexual immorality, I do not know much about this element; what troubles me is that Catholics could be so easily led astray.
ALEX RIVERA:
The “Holy Spirit” which we all know is basically the presence of “God” himself which is everywhere at the same time 2 or 3 people congregate in his name to worship “Him” to better explain it; would have left the earth so would death, according to the bible people would suffer such agony and terror that they will seek death and not find it, if he were the “Jesus” or “Anti-Christ” he claims to be then according to “Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda” “God is a liar…My opinion is he has committed Blasphemy against the “Holy Spirit” in which according to the “Bible” is a sin without forgiveness. So with this being Blogged let’s let these things come to pass so that the word of “God” is fulfilled and keep this man and his followers in our prayers so that “God” may have mercy on their souls. May God bless us all, Amen!
FATHER JOE:
Father Joe: I will try to parse what you wrote. (1) The divine presence is indeed omnipresent. That is true, not simply about the Holy Spirit, but about the Triune God. (2) It is Jesus who tells us that he is present when we gather with others to pray. (3) This passage you write makes no sense: “…would have left the earth so would death, according to the bible people would suffer such agony and terror that they will seek death and not find it…” The clauses do not link up in a coherent manner. I have no idea what you are trying to say. (4) You are right that Miranda is not the Christ although he may be a minor antichrist. God is not a liar; about this your insight is also correct. Miranda’s claims are blasphemous and erroneous. (5) There has been much conjecture about the unforgivable sin. Many churchmen have regarded it as suicide. But if one condemns the works of the Holy Spirit as demonic it would logically be very difficult, if not impossible, to embrace the mercy from that same Spirit. (6) We can pray for the repentance and conversion to true faith of this man and his followers.
ALEX RIVERA:
Just wanted to add the fact that the “Anti-Christ” comes after the second coming of “Jesus” so he has the order in which they happen correctly but that’s all he has.
FATHER JOE:
Throughout history there have been many antichrists. It refers to any and all who reject and oppose Christ and his Church. The term also signifies a false Christ or counterfeit messiah. This is not to deny the possibility of a singular apocalyptic antichrist; however, many authorities suggest that this pointed to the Emperor Nero or possibly another tyrant of pagan Rome who persecuted the early Church.
ALEX RIVERA:
Pentecostal Christian church is how I congregate and I’ve seen the “Holy Spirit” in action so he must be fibbing, how do I know it’s the “Holy Spirit” and not some person looking silly jumping up & down screaming gibberish? Come to a Spanish speaking Pentecostal Christian Church and find out for yourself.
FATHER JOE:
While I have known Pentecostals in love with the Lord, it is traditionally regarded as a cult itself. As a Catholic priest I could never encourage others to join its ranks, but at least they do not worship a contemporary man as Jesus Christ. However, there is the Catholic Charismatic Renewal which expresses many of the lesser gifts without neglecting the greater gifts of the Spirit in our Christian faith and in the sacraments.
ALEX RIVERA:
No I’m not saying it’s the real religion or the best church or the only way to feel the “Holy Spirit” but it’s the only place I’ve experienced it many times so I can guarantee it. Definition for Church: The body of all Christians. May God bless us all, Amen!
FATHER JOE:
God bless you!
MATTHEW RANGEL:
As many of you know Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is not Christ. The time for the real one draws near. This will happen in our life time. The earth is getting ready for a new beginning. In the near future, horrible things are to come. Always remember who you serve and that there is a plan of action that must happen. So whatever happens— DO NOT lose your faith. Remember, if you lose someone close to you that individual will be in a better place, so don’t get mad at God. The path will soon be set for the second coming, so you all should be ready now. Go fourth and teach the Lord’s teachings to others so that they too will be saved. Be strong with the Lord and do what he asks. In the coming years great events will soon unfold. Always do what is right; that is if it will please God, do it, if it won’t, then don’t. Never lose hope for God will ALWAYS be there.
The headline I read back in 2007 asserted, “Hong Kong Reports Mainland Chinese Eating Infants.” Say what? Can this be real? It sounded like a sick joke or maybe a slur to belittle the Chinese. But it supposedly came from a reliable news source.
Below is a portion of an article posted online at EPOCH TIMES and taken from a Hong Kong weekly, THE NEXT MAGAZINE.
Can it be true? If you have a strong stomach you can follow the link. It is monstrous! Of course, there was scandal a number of years ago when certain shampoos were using aborted fetuses for the animal protein ingredient. Further, while used for research, catalogues with baby body parts circulate even in the United States, with hefty price-tags attached. I learned about these from friends who work at NIH.
China’s stringent, dare I say “mandatory” abortion measures and population control, once praised by Mrs. Clinton, may have precipitated such a callous view of the child as seen in the article:
The Next Magazine, a weekly publication from Hong Kong, reported that infant corpses and fetuses have become the newest supplements for health and beauty in China. Not only is the placenta considered a beauty remedy, but also aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies. In Guangdong, gourmet body parts are in high demand and can even be purchased through hospitals. The magazine’s investigations into this form of cannibalism took them to Liaoning province.
According to The Next Magazine, during a banquet hosted by a Taiwanese businessman, a servant Ms. Liu from Liaoning province on the mainland inadvertently revealed the habit of eating infants/fetuses in Liaoning province and her intention to return for the supplement due to health concerns. The Taiwanese women present were horrified.
No further comment, I have to go throw up.
DISCUSSION
PETER: How, precisely, does one spring that on one’s dinner guests? “This looks interesting – what is it?” “Roast baby with a raspberry coulis.” *Barf* the depth of depravity is positively unfathomable. And there are those who want to follow down this road… *boggle.*
AMBER: Absolutely horrifying! What in the world is wrong with people? How could it have gotten this bad? This completely sickens me…
JAMES: This is one of the worst things of which I have ever heard! God help us! It makes me think that the wrath of God cannot be far away. Of course, given the apathy and ignorance today, it makes me think that this ignorance of God IS part of the wrath of God. Oh God, please give these miserable people the grace to find you!
KAMASULLAH: I wouldn’t be surprised if they are eating babies in China!! Because, as I have seen their food, I think they will eat anything on the earth… insects, cats, dogs, monkeys, snakes, rats, and finally dead human babies.. OMG, who knows what else they eat and we don’t know!
ASDF: Ha-ha, at least it’s organic. The cr-p we eat causes cancer.
SIEWEN: OMG! Are you serious?! I’d rather get cancer then eat that. It’s sick and disgusting. It is bad enough to be a cannibal, but to go so far as to eat A BABY?! It is sickening, completely uncalled for and ridiculous. However, I think that this evolved from stem cell research and abortion, so we are all kind of guilty. Nasty people in the world!
FATHER JOE: Jonathan Swift gave us his Modest Proposal for the Irish. Such things are not new but they make us pause to think about the real nightmares around us. Both Scotland Yard and the FBI purportedly looked into this allegation. Zhu Yu did an exhibit called, “Eating People,” at the Shanghai Arts Festival in 2000. Here is the frightful photo faked with a duck carcass and a baby doll head. Unfortunately stories about forced abortions and even that of a new-born drowned among the rice paddies are true. Who needs hoaxes while we already have real horror stories?
How might we handle the marriage crisis in the Church? Here are a few of my suggestions:
1. There should be a Pre-Cana preparation program that parallels RCIA instructions. Couples can meet weekly in their parishes with a team that will help them to appreciate the sacrament, the moral obligations, and how this union fits into their Christian discipleship (openness to human life, avoidance of pornography, etc.).
2. Couples without children that are cohabitating should be urged to separate during the time of preparation prior to the wedding. If there are children or this is just not practical, then they should be urged to live as brother and sister until the marriage.
3. Couples that continue to cohabitate and/or have attempted marriage before a civil magistrate or non-Catholic minister still have the natural right to marriage; however, the scandal they have caused should not be amplified by a full-blown church-wedding. Convalidations or ceremonies for such couples might be very small, without rehearsal, with no less than two witnesses and no more than perhaps a dozen people. There should be no flowers, no music, no fancy dresses and no reception on parish property. There would be the reading of Scripture, a brief homily, the exchange of vows, the bidding prayers and the closing blessings. The service should take no more than 30 minutes.
4. The nuptial Mass is properly reserved to Catholic couples who are faithful to each other and to the Church, honestly struggling to be chaste and participating in the pre-marital preparation. A wedding without the Mass can be celebrated for a faithful Catholic marrying a non-Catholic who respects the spouse’s faith and has agreed to have the children raised as Catholics. These couples would also be eligible for parish receptions.
5. The dress for the bridal party and the bride should be feminine and beautiful, but not skimpy and erotic. Bosoms should have ample coverage and legs should not be excessively exposed.
6. Music for the liturgical celebration must be exclusively religious. Popular and/or romantic songs should be saved for the reception. There should be an air of gravity, not flippancy at the wedding. Exaggerated walking, dancing down the aisle and props like fake noses or full costumes are best avoided.
7. Receptions for Catholic weddings should include nothing that is profane in language, music, dance or actions. The practice of extracting the bride’s garter should be forbidden as lewd and undermining to the woman’s dignity. Her body belongs to her husband and is not the object for leering and jokes from male guests.
8. It should be understood that bachelor parties and parties for the bride with the girls must be sober and pure. Strippers and pornographic videos are no way for couples to spiritually prepare for marriage. Like the knights of old, the night before their great journey and life together should be spent in prayer and reflection.
I know, a few of you are shaking your heads, and mumbling, “That Father Jenkins is crazy!”
I regularly follow the wisdom on Msgr. Charlie Pope’s blog for the Archdiocese of Washington. Recently, he posted on the following question: “In the wake of the Supreme Court decisions of this week, are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?” A number of Catholic voices are arguing that we should disengage ourselves both with the word “marriage” and from allowing clergy to function as civil magistrates in witnessing them for the state. Certainly I am sympathetic with what they hope to accomplish. However, I am already on the record, from past discussions, as opposed to such a retreat. Both sides can play word-games. Towards the end, he poses a second question, “Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil ‘marriage’ licenses?” Again, I appreciate the underlying reasoning; we want to avoid guilt by association and giving apparent approbation. My fear is that any such move would be contrary to a well-ordered or structured society (which is a good in itself). It would also constitute a retreat that opponents in the public forum would exploit. It seems to me that our laity would bear the blunt of the suffering and challenge that would come from such a move.
I am not blind to the dire crisis we face. It is true that marriage as an institution has been largely redefined by our society. The movement on behalf of same-sex unions is a case in point; of course, if left unchecked it will not stop there. Next we will see the return of polygamy. Despite the many scandals faced by the Church, there are even depraved people pushing for pedophilia and pederasty. There is already a bizarre effort in Australia for a man to marry his pet goat, the degradation of bestiality. The U.S. bishops reminded us in their failed initiative that marriage is in trouble. While I am hesitant to criticize our holy shepherds; the fact is that marriage has been in trouble for some time now and we were largely silent. Contraception nullifies the consummation of the marital act. Millions of abortions seek to erase through murder the fruit of marital love. No-fault divorce allows for quick separations and remarriages. Prenuptial Agreements insert doubt against the vows and a lack of trust from the very beginning, thus making those marriages null-and–void. Couples fornicate and cohabitate, essentially saying that you do not have to be married to have sex. Well, when you separate sex and marriage, you also set the stage for infidelity and adultery. Once sex is disconnected from marriage it is very hard to reattach it with any kind of necessity. Our society is saturated by an erotic and pornographic media that destroys courtship and sexualizes relationships. This dilemma is so pervasive that the inner person has lost any sense of propriety or decency. Viagra gives the old stamina to neglect their coming judgment and condoms give the young license under the illusion of protection. Wedding dresses that once expressed modesty and femininity are increasing replaced with skimpy gowns akin to those on television dance contests. Ours is the generation where all rights, even the right to life, are supplanted by the emerging and absolute right to have sex with anyone regardless of promises and unions. The children are caught up in the middle of this whirlwind. This is so much so that we even dress our little girls like the prostitutes that walk the street.
Much Ado about a Word
Msgr. Pope makes the accurate observation that the Church and society-at-large mean very different things by the word, “marriage.” Of course, this is also the situation with many other terms as well. While language is fluid and hard to control; it can certainly be manipulated. Look at the word GAY. This expression for joy or happiness has become the source for giggling when used in old songs. It has now been exclusively usurped by the homosexual community. Another word in peril is RELATIONSHIP. When we hear teens or young adults use it these days, they generally mean a sexual friendship with a certain degree of exclusivity. The word that most troubles and saddens me today is LOVE. What precisely does it mean anymore? We do not want to cast it off and so the dictionary definition gets longer and longer. Look at how we use it. “I love my car. I love my dog. I love my job. I love my house. I love donuts. I love strippers. I love my wife. I love my children. I love God.” Then we have expressions like, “Let’s make love,” a euphemism for sex. We give it so many meanings that the word begins to mean nothing.
What does the word MARRIAGE mean? Is it just a civil contract to make having sex easier or more convenient? If that is all it is, it is no wonder that couples are cohabitating without it. Some states have argued for different types of marriage contracts, one more easily dissolved than the other. There was even an effort to impose marriage licenses with term limits. If after five years, if the spouses were unhappy, they could opt not to renew. The marriages would then automatically expire. The divorce epidemic, something which Protestant churches pamper by their failure to enforce Christ’s command in Matthew against divorce, has given us what is essentially serial or progressive polygamy, one spouse after another. Proponents of “open” marriages suggest that couples should still be able to have sex with others outside their bond. I know one instance where a man lives with both his wife and his mistress in the same house. The girls share him. Largely gone is the Catholic-Christian equation that marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman who are called to be faithful to each other until the death of one of the spouses. Marriages are rightly directed toward the good of the spouses and the generation of new human beings, children. Stripping marriage of its propagative element is to make marriage wholly something else. Even infertile couples must express their union in that act which by nature is directed to the generation of new human life. That is why something like condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil, even in marriage, yes, even among older infertile couples. Too many couples feign the marital act and live in relationships that are not true marriages. The large cases of annulments are cases in point. People can share their bodies like cats and dogs but they are ignorant of the true parameters of marital love and union. Although a natural right, they have made themselves ill-disposed to the sacrament. Required six-month waiting periods and marriage preparation are attempts to remedy the dark situation. However, couples frequently go through the motions and tell the moderators and clergy what they want to hear. I recall one priest praising a couple he was working with for doing all the right things before marriage. On the way out one evening, I overheard the prospective groom tell his girl, “What a jerk!” Later I found out from parishioners that they had been cohabitating the whole time and only went to the priest’s Masses once-in-a-while to fool him about their religiosity. They spent a fortune on the wedding and we never saw them again. I heard a few years later they divorced because “they grew apart.” When Catholics marry outside the Church, in the eyes of God they do not get married at all. However, Catholics who marry in the Church might also start their unions with deception. Planting lies today often leads to weeds tomorrow.
I will echo Msgr. Pope in giving the definition of MARRIAGE from the universal catechism:
[CCC 1601] The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
What are we to do when the definition given to marriage in no way parallel’s the understanding of the Church?
Msgr. Pope proposes that we stop using the word “marriage” and substitute instead, “holy matrimony.” He explains:
“The word ‘matrimony’ also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = ‘mother’ and ‘mony,’ a suffix indicating ‘action, state, or condition.’ Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has ‘marriage’ for its nomen.”
He readily admits that there are problems with trying to regulate language in such ways. If I recall correctly, I was among those unconvinced and “perturbed that we were handing over our vocabulary to the libertines.”
We can play word games but our opponents are not fools. They were not happy with the notion of “civil unions” and wanted “marriage.” Don’t be surprised that they will also be speaking of their bonds in terms of “holy matrimony.”
Marriage is a natural right. Opting to use another word is not going to change this fact. Homosexuals and lesbians can feign marriage and the state might recognize it; but, in truth such unions are a violation of the natural law. The debate or argument is best sustained by retention of the vocabulary. We must insist that same-sex marriage is a fiction. Surrendering the word would only grant them the false sense that they had succeeded in making their argument.
If we cannot even defend a word like “marriage,” then how can we defend all the ideas behind it? This conflict is not just about marriage; it is a fight over the hearts and minds of people. So-called same sex-marriage is just one weapon in the enemy’s arsenal. The goal of our critics is to redefine the Church out of existence. The government administration wants to become the sole arbiter of marriage; but more than this— it views Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, and Catholic hospitals as standing in its way. Threats to close would only make them nationalize these institutions and they would argue that such is a “necessity” for “the public good.” This is the goal of our antagonists. If American society is to be remade then the Church must either change to insignificance or be destroyed. This is the fight we face.
Ministers of the State or of the Church
My initial sentiments emerged as an aside to the courageous crusade of Bai Macfarlane against No-Fault Divorce. The question arose as to whether clergy compromised themselves by acting as witnesses for the state, signing the marriage licenses and returning them to the courts. Msgr. Pope continues to sign them, he says, out of holy obedience to the Archbishop. Speaking for myself, I think we would forfeit too much by surrendering this privilege to the state. I suspect that problems might escalate instead of get better. Further, if the Church should opt out, would not our couples still have to get their civil licenses before Church weddings? He seems to think not, arguing that they should “in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.” I recall arguing with a hippie years ago who regarded the marriage license as just a piece of paper. In response, I cited that it came along with the Church sacrament and that it also respected the state’s right to regulate marriages as an integral building block to society. The state is taking a wrong turn with these same sex unions but we should still take advantage of our rights as citizens. That piece of paper says that as a member of society, I still have a voice and that marriage is an institution that must be acknowledged, regardless as to whether others are given such acknowledgment wrongly (in the past because of divorce and today also because of same-sex unions). Opting out will undermine a structured society, its institutions, and the protections and rights we take for granted.
I have immigrants in my parish from Asia and Africa. Their home nations do not give the privilege that our clergy enjoy in being able to witness marriages. Some of them have only known tribal weddings. Others have licenses from a judge or notary public. While they should have immediately had their marriages solemnized by a priest, they put the process off. Children were conceived. Time went by, maybe years, and now they all need Church convalidations. Would we reduce all marriages in the Church to convalidations?
If we attempt to marry people in Church who are not legally married; we will be facing all sorts of headaches. We would be opening the door to rampant bigamy where people would be civilly married to one person and married in the Church to another— without the recourse to the legal fiction of divorce. At present the state recognizes all Church unions even though the Church does not acknowledge every civil union. The last thing we should want is to segregate the Church into her own private ghetto where there are “us” and “them.” We have every right to a place in the public forum and should fight for it. Our married couples have every right to the protections insured by law (tax incentives, inheriting property, healthcare and insurance, custodial issues with offspring, hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse, and sharing a name). Marrying couples without civil licenses would once have opened our couples to prosecution for cohabitation. Even if this is a bygone concern, there is still the prospect of scandal. Some will view “married in the Church” but “not in the state” as NOT being married at all. The children from such unions could be labeled as “bastards” by our critics.
The Church has a responsibility to be fully integrated into civil society as a constitutive part. There will be conflicts but accommodations will have to be made that will not compromise our message and mission. Maybe there is a need for different types of licenses from the state for religious weddings, distinguishing them from civil ones? Indeed, there are different theologies between the churches. Some view the clergy person as the one who performs the marriage. Catholics view the spouses as the ministers of the sacrament to which the priest witnesses. Episcopalians and others will probably even allow and celebrate same-sex unions. We may become a minority voice in this society but we should not allow that voice to be silenced. Taking our toys and going home angry will not fix the situation. The retreat of the Church would be precisely what our enemies want. I fear that it would further erode the foundations of our civilization. Caesar’s empire might be pagan, but the Christian and the Church still have obligations to maintain a society that would protect our rights and freedoms.
I would maintain the status-quo with priests witnessing marriages for the state. However, there may come a day when that is taken away from us. We can cope with that when it comes. Civil disobedience might then take many forms, some of which could be extremely bizarre. One priest suggested that all our religious houses claim same-sex unions so as to get the marriage benefits and healthcare. I know one case already where a married couple got divorced but still live together so as to have better retirement benefits. I suspect that laws will be passed to force couples and the Church to behave. How far do we want to press it? Speaking for myself, I really hate retreating.
The Larger Challenge
It is my hope that we will have courageous shepherds and a supportive flock. I foresee priests facing fines and jail time for hate-speech in regard to teaching and preaching against homosexuality. After all, the Church’s language about marriage in the recent Supreme Court case was appraised as bigotry. Hum, we might have to take priests entirely out of the marriage scenario if all our clergy are locked up. Already, while the Church is currently protected, and we cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, organizations like the Knights of Columbus are not safeguarded. At this writing the free-standing Knights of Columbus halls in Maryland have been notified that due to their state charters they must rent for the wedding receptions of homosexuals and lesbians. The pressure is already on.
Our public schools are teaching that any reservation about homosexuality is discrimination. What will our children then think of their churches? Must we extract all our children from the public schools? Who will pay to place them into Catholic institutions? Homeschooling is an option for some but not for all. Where are we going from here? If the government and the media are more successful than the Church in forming consciences and teaching values; then what avenues are left? The issue is far more complex than any nomenclature of marriage or whether priests are authorized as civil magistrates. The question is how does the Church function and survive in a non-Christian society?
Catholics did not unanimously support the U.S. bishops in the Marriage Matters campaign. Indeed, large numbers were vocal in opposition. We hesitate to name names and are always fearful of our tax-exemption status. But if we are going to be shunned in a matter similar to racists over the issue of homosexual acceptance; then we will no doubt forfeit such benefits in the days ahead. I know I sound pessimistic and cynical. But that is what I see coming. The Church waited too long to find her teeth. She is an old dog grown weak from inactivity and abandoned by her pups. There are wolves coming. They want the Church out of the way. Look at the various initiatives of the current administration. Starting with appointments in religious churches and schools, then forcing churches to violate their basic principles and next pressing upon us what was once an unthinkable depravity— all these are attempts to redefine the Church out of existence. The president’s view of religion is seen through the prism of secular humanism. Anything else is judged as extraneous and must go.
There are some who are pawns to those who hate the Church. Others actually think that they are catalysts for positive change in the Church and society. Look at all the Catholic politicians who oppose the U.S. bishops and who dissent on Church teaching. The chief advocates in Maryland and in Washington are baptized Catholics. Like Msgr. Pope, I have my opinions; and like him, in obedience we both defer to the Archbishop and the national shepherds of our Church. We share our ideas, pray for courage and know that God will not abandon his children.
No matter whether Protestant or Catholic, the late Pope John Paul II lamented that believers in Christ would sometimes seek to use violence against consciences and to forcibly stamp their religion upon others. The Medieval view was that heresy was a mortal sin that killed the soul. Some argued that such was a capital crime given that the murder of souls was direr than the murder of bodies. Governments also usurped religion for political purposes, seeing religion as glue that held society together. On both sides there was often exaggeration as to the blood lust of the other. Indeed, to this very day, anti-Catholic bigots will use impossibly large numbers in their prejudicial arguments and slurs against the Church. Some critics bring up the crusades or the inquisitions as if they happened last Tuesday. Forgotten is the real threat that Islam posed for the Christian world and how money and power, as well as an invention called the printing press, fueled the Protestant Reformation. Many of the inquisition courts were very modest in their efforts. While there were various national courts, when there is criticism, the target is usually the harsher Spanish Inquisition, which was even criticized by Rome. Further, as I already said, Protestant monarchs would repress the freedoms of Catholics just as Catholic leaders had sought to minimize the damage of non-Catholic factions in their nations. The Inquisition in Italy is regarded by all authorities as the most mild. Crimes were not just heresy but infractions for which today’s civil courts would also render punishment. Of 75,000 cases judged, some 1,250 may have received the death sentence.
What was the position of the Protestant reformers?
Calvin sought to persecute heretics (particularly Roman Catholics) so as to keep Protestant believers in the lands divided by the Reformation faithful to his new teachings. He viciously persecuted the Spaniard, Michael Servetus, having him burnt alive on October 27, 1553. As early as 1545, Calvin had written, “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive.” He kept his promise. (Here is a case where Protestants attacked their own in that Servetus, while having a brother who was a Catholic priest, had participated in the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, he was regarded as a heretic by both sides.)
Melancthon, one of the more mild reformers and the editor for Luther’s many works and teachings, would write to Bullinger, “I am astonished that some persons denounce the severity that was so justly used in that case.”
Theodore of Beza wrote: “What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin’s Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.” He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience “worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases.”
Martin Luther also fanned the flames of intolerance, “Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”
Much of this information (and numbers) is taken from The Truth about the Inquisition by John A. O’Brien and published in 1950 by The Paulist Press. It should be noted that the numbers of deaths under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth have been challenged by other researchers.
King Henry VIII of England took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor. O’Brien states that the king took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured. Father Francis Marsden offers the correction: “Henry’s victims were John Fisher and Thomas More, the Carthusian abbots and monks, and a few more Catholics, plus all those (several hundred) executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace. There were also a number of Protestants executed for denying the Six Articles of 1540. But he certainly did not kill 72,000.” Nevertheless, the best estimate from Wikipedia is that approximately 70,000 people were executed (for all offenses) during the reign of Henry VIII. Another critic suggests that there may have been 4,000 Catholics killed under Henry VIII, not “judicially” executed, but killed by agents of the Crown, soldiers and the like. There were some Catholic revolts put down by force. The figures go up and down, making a historical analysis difficult. But for those facing death, no matter what the number, it was bad.
Queen Elizabeth, says O’Brien, proved herself the former’s daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years! Here too, Father Marsden insists that “In England and Wales, we have about 500 martyrs and confessors in total over the period 1534 to 1679. I believe the last Catholic died in prison about 1720. Elizabeth’s victims may have been about 300, plus those executed after the rising of the Northern Earls of 1569-70. But this is over the whole of her reign, 1558-1603.” By contrast, “the death toll of the Inquisition is in the range 2000 to 5000.”
Yes, there was more than enough blame to go around. Maybe it is time for respect and dialogue and if need be, the charitable anathema, instead of mockery and half-truths? Of course, sometimes the truth is hard to discover. I was told that one of Sir Thomas More’s own letters makes mention of the death of 4,000 Catholics in the minor port town of Chelsea. However, another critic corrected that in 1528 the population of Chelsea was reported to be 190 adults and children, including 16 households which grew no corn, and Sir Thomas More reported that 100 were fed daily in his household, 49 though not all those would have been living in the parish. In 1548 there were 75 communicants (16 years and over).
The Catholic Truth Society reckoned that 318 men and woman were put to death for the Faith in England between the reigns of Henry VII and Charles II. “After being hanged up, they were cut down, ripped up, and their bowels were burned in their faces.”
The entire population of England and Wales at that time was only around 4 million.
O’Brien makes reference to the whole vicious enmity that would bring persecution and deaths for centuries. Henry VIII got the ball rolling (or heads rolling) and even had himself declared head of the Church in Ireland. Monasteries were closed and destroyed, monks were imprisoned, dispersed and executed, and lands were confiscated.
It was a Protestant England that committed genocide upon a starving Catholic Ireland. The guilt for that blood is on the hands of many, including the one who initiated the break with the true Church. Today, the truth of this betrayal is admitted in UK school text books. Crops were sold by the landowners even as the tenants themselves starved.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 