Uncategorized | Blogger Priest

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #3 (Debate)

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Father Joe

A Debate with Fred on Homosexuality

FRED:

We Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we do wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. Without Jesus and His deal to make it all right, we would be planning our new residence in Hell. But we have taken Jesus as Savior and Lord and He keeps us in His Father’s loving will. As Lord, Jesus bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, sin is always a violation of love.

FRED:

Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the “sinner”? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? Jesus didn’t. These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God’s grace and live by working the law.

FATHER JOE:

St. Paul’s words cannot be rationalized away. He was the great apostle who spoke about us as living in the freedom of grace that faith brings and not under the yoke of the law. However, he is also the one who exhorts against homosexual activity as a sin that can cost us eternal life. Are you saying that the epistles of St. Paul in the Bible are not God’s inspired Word? The teachings of Christ come through his words and actions and through the witness and message of the Apostles in his living Church.

Your questions are good ones and I will attempt to answer as best I can:

1. Who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship?

There are many victims, beginning with Christ who as the saving Lamb of God suffered and died under the weight of all the sins committed or ever to be committed. If we loved Jesus as we should, then we would make a better effort to live a virtuous life in keeping with the commandments. The Jews understood the commandments against sexual immorality as also referring to homosexual misconduct. It was for that reason that they enacted a dire punishment upon those caught. I must also add a corrective. Sometimes sin is not a matter of an “unloved victim” but rather of a person or persons who were not loved enough. True love requires discipline and sacrifice. When I prepare couples for marriage and discover that they are cohabitating and/or fornicating, their response is often that they love each other “too much” to wait. I would not deny that they love each other, but there is something of a lie about what they say and do. If they loved each other as true Christians should, then they should be willing to undergo any difficulty and sacrifice for the beloved. Thus they lie about the depth of their love. The second lie is their relationship, itself. The marital act is a loving act between a husband and wife. Between anyone else it is a fraud and cannot express what God intends for it to convey. Two homosexual men or two lesbian women might have incredible affection for each other. Because of their sexual disorder, this accompanies a passionate interest as well. But sometimes true love does not mean intimate embracing or being together. Sometimes it means walking away and distance. Sexual love is only permitted between spouses in marriage. Unmarried heterosexuals are not entitled to it. Marriage by definition is a covenant or contract between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as same sex-marriage. Thus, people of the same gender may never engage in sexual acts with one another. I know this sounds harsh, but I believe that homosexuality is viewed as an abomination by God. I see no way around the Scriptural testimony or the basic physical mechanics of human nature. Men and women’s parts fit together and they are made for each other. Homosexuality means trying to rewrite the manual, and the end result does not work very well. There is no potential for offspring and the bodies themselves are sometimes harmed. Love does not have to be sexual. If there is no possibility of reversal, I believe homosexuals are called to a generous and prayerful love in the context of the Church and for the larger community. But this love must be chaste and celibate.

2. Where is the hurt?

The hurt comes from a failure to love each other as God intends. One may not immediately become aware of the harm on a subjective level, but it is there. Just as kids who say they are in love take no note of the STD they transmit from one to the other; homosexual couples may only become aware over time of the emotional frustration inherent in feigning legitimate sexual intercourse. Further, there must be a spiritual effect, given that there is an objectively immoral relationship. As for Catholics, the Magisterium of the Church leaves no doubt that homosexual acts are always and everywhere disordered and wrong. The question might be better phrased as, “Who does it hurt?” I hear this all the time from young people who are sexually active. They learn all too soon that it hurts them and that there are serious consequences for sinful behavior. Casual relationships often break off; as for homosexuals, statistics show that the gay pick-up scene is more the rule than the exception. A husband and wife can truly express the two becoming one flesh. Gay sexual activity always leaves the partners somewhat estranged from each other. No matter how much they try, they are never one flesh. This makes infidelity all the easier. The manner by which they parrot the marital act is in itself somewhat abusive and an ugly caricature of the male-female dynamic.

3. Who could bring suit against the “sinner”?

Traditionally I suppose it was society that punished certain sins judged as criminal. The federal government forced the Mormons of Utah to give up plural marriage and up until recent times, sodomy and homosexual activity were illegal in most places. Indeed, cohabitation between men and women was punishable in some states, like Virginia. Many places were so concerned about it that after five years, the legality of common law marriages was imposed. The judgment that most matters, is that of almighty God. Anyone who contends that God would look the other way or favor homosexual unions is fighting two thousand years of tradition. Contemporary revisionism is on pretty shaky ground.

FRED:

It is noteworthy that Gay people employ themselves in loving professions like medicine, education and the ministry. However, some Christians evidently work in the Biblical judicial system.

FATHER JOE:

That is not fair! All Christians should seek to know the mind of God so that they might better please him. God revealed his truths to us for a reason, not so they may be ignored or rationalized away. Many Christian heterosexuals are also in the service ministries, but any denial of the objective moral order represents a false compassion. Homosexuals are urged to be chaste and celibate, not because we are busy-bodies or want to hurt them, but because we love them and want them to do what is right. It is in their interest to be holy and in a right relationship with God and his Church. This relationship has both a personal and a corporate component. We take St. Paul seriously when he says that certain types of conduct can cost us our place in the kingdom of heaven.

FRED:

Certainly if God didn’t want men to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD” (see Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole “… as with a woman” thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28) for “leaving their natural relations” (i.e., as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men are attracted to other men by definition and by God. They can only imagine what sex “… as with a woman” would be like.

FATHER JOE:

There is some confusion in your words at this point. Fred, you are not being honest with yourself or us. God is abundantly and brutally clear. The issue with the Jews was a lot more complicated than idolatry. Jewish and Christian anthropology will not permit homosexuality. The verdict for such sins in the Old Testament was terrible, either God raining down fire from heaven upon two cities or the stoning to death of those who were exposed. Arguably the ancient Jews were more bloodthirsty than we would care to think about; but penalties aside, homosexuality was never tolerated.

Many in the pagan world (who worshipped false gods or idols) also tolerated homosexuality. We are not to be like the pagans, yesterday or today. Looking at the context that you note from Leviticus, we read:

“You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent” (Leviticus 18:21-23).

Goodness! The ancient Jews classified the evil of homosexuality as between child sacrifice to demons and sex with animals! Certain elements of the Levitical codes were based upon accidentals and custom. These prohibitions here represent a significant understanding of what makes up the substance of humanity: the sanctity life and value of children as opposed to the barren vulgarity of sodomy and zoophilia.

As for Romans, you are presumptuous in saying that “straight Romans” were condemned for homosexual sex. St. Paul is a Pharisee, he knows the Jewish law. The condemnation here is because some followed their inclination, their homosexual disorientation. By the way, bisexuals stand just as condemned by their conduct as others who violate the natural order and God’s will. Sexual disorientation is viewed by the Church as an effect of Original sin. God did not design men to be so orientated. They are wounded or broken.

Imagine, for a moment Fred that God is speaking to you through St. Paul (Romans 1:18-27):

“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

You are suppressing the truth for what you want to selfishly believe. You worship the creature, the folly of men before the wisdom of God. That which should be clear and evident is made foggy in your mind. Here is further Scriptural testimony (1 Timothy 5-11):

“The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance. We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

Jude 6-7 offers another witness on this matter:

“The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

FRED:

“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. (The King James Version is honest.) It premiered in a1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.

FATHER JOE:

Do you prefer the label sodomites? [Given that this biblical term is increasingly viewed as hurtful and offensive, I am weaning myself from using it.] The word “Gay” is unfortunate. I have met very few happy homosexuals.

FRED:

What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus. Instead of judging them, shouldn’t Christians be telling those “sinful” homosexuals that Jesus died for their sins? The stumbling block is that Gays do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians. Know Jesus, know love. No Jesus, no love.

FATHER JOE:

What do you think the Church is trying to do? We want homosexuals to know divine forgiveness and salvation in Christ. However, this requires the admonishment: repent and believe! If we did not love them, we would keep our mouths closed and allow them to continue toward perdition. We speak out because we love and care. Unfortunately, certain homosexuals interpret this as hatred and being mean-spirited. Jesus is both the judge of the world and the lover of souls. He is Divine Justice and Divine Mercy, in person. You focus upon his mercy but neglect his justice. The problem is not that homosexuals “do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians,” but rather, that they are resisting conversion and hard obedience, as well as those Christians who love them too much not to tell them the truth. Homosexual acts are wrong. God does not approve. Embrace purity and platonic friendships.

Discussion

TASTI:

Self-righteousness, however packaged, using scriptures to legislate your brand of religious morality against a group of people in a democratic society is simply reflective of the same kind of intolerance that goes back ages. Scriptures have been used to justify racism, hate and all kinds of acts against mankind in the name of God. Thankfully, there are those within the Catholic and Christian community who don’t share this same kind of narrow perspective. The fight for civil rights for the LGBT community will continue and will eventually win.

FATHER JOE:

Who is self-righteous? I quoted Scripture and the universal catechism. Your problem is not with me but with God and his Church. Apparently you have not read all my posts on this subject, because I believe that everyone, including homosexuals, should be treated with respect. I have friends who are gay. However, I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. They disagree with me and I disagree with them. Why would you deny me the right in a democratic society to express my ideas, no matter how offensive you might find them? I advocate no violence or gross acts of discrimination. I believe in working within the system, yes, even though the legislation and judicial process might very well go the other way. I do not believe in policing bedrooms and neither do I believe in a totalitarianism that masquerades as democratic liberalism. As for Catholics who think differently, yes, some do, and that is their choice. However, as a priest and a Catholic Christian, I remain with the solid teaching of Christ and his Church and not with that of the contemporary dissenters. They base their views less upon the preaching of the Church than upon the views of MTV and a secular culture.

LARA:

At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, Father, this question has occurred to me: does our incessant insanity ever cause our Creator to weep?

STEVE:

“They are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-32)

…to me this sounds like the self-appointed kings and queens I see braying continuously about the perceived evils in others.

Before swinging that bat so widely, let’s just purge the church of all the homosexuals.

Then let’s see how many guys are left standing there in their satins and velvets and embroidered hats.

FATHER JOE:

Most of the clergy I know and with whom I have worked are faithful to their celibacy. I would suspect they are also mostly heterosexuals, although a few bad eggs have given the Church pretty bad press. Pray that priests and bishops will be faithful to God, loving and protecting their flocks. By the way, even REAL MEN can wear the fancy uniforms. Peace!

GRAHAM:

Make no mistake about it: practicing homosexuality is a sin that will send people to hell; but, let’s not forget adultery, fornication, lying (white lies included), hatred, malice, envy and so forth. Read the 17 works of the flesh by Paul.

However, I do believe there are those individuals who are truly born with a desire for their own sex; it is a curse brought down through the generations— and it is an abnormality. God said He would visit the sins of the fathers from 3-4 generations ago upon the children.

(Exodus 20:5) “… for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”

In conclusion, the desire for your own sex, in and of itself, is not sin, just temptation. If, however, that desire is put into practice, you have sinned.

Love the Lord your God and He will make your ways straight (no pun intended).
(Exodus 20:6) “And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

FRACTAL:

Love is good, God is Love. Liberty is good, too.

RENEGADE ICONOCLAST:

Mat. 7:1-5 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

speck: ‘sin’ between consenting adults
plank: pedophiles running around in the Church

FATHER JOE:

You would quote Scripture to get me to stop quoting Scripture? Pleeease! As for your “speck” and “plank” distinction, it is misapplied. Serious sins are all planks: fornication, homosexuality, as well as pederasty and pedophilia— all planks that need removal if blindness is not to become permanent. Mortal sin is mortal sin, although I would grant you that the sin between a man and woman is “according to nature” and the others are “opposed or in contradiction to nature.”

MORSE:

“…and begin to impose that lifestyle on me, my children and those who have not chosen such a life,” this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

No one is imposing anything on you. No one is forcing you or your children to be gay. We’re just trying to keep people not unlike yourself from imposing your lifestyle on others.

Here’s a nice metaphor: if you’re hitting someone with a stick, and I take the stick away, I’m not imposing on your rights. I’m protecting the right of the person you’re hitting.

JOHN:

Homosexuality is definitely wrong and serious sin. Yet that does not mean that they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. They can repent and become chaste in their lives and receive the sacraments if they free themselves from this sin. Yes it is hard to reason with homosexuals, abortionists and atheists that get ugly and turn their heads from logic. I personally thought I could change them but it is not me, it is God that does the changing.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Is the HHS Compromise Really a Compromise?

Posted on February 12, 2012 by Father Joe

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Wuerl’s response to compromise.

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Dolan’s letter to fellow bishops.

Who is the architect of this fiasco with the HHS?

The buck stops with the President and the head of the department, which he appointed: Kathleen Sebelius. What is her background as a “Catholic”?

When she was governor, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas told her that she “should stop receiving Communion until she publicly repudiates her support of abortion.” More recently, Archbishop Raymond F. Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis but now prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest court, ruled that Mrs. Sebelius should not approach the altar for Communion in the United States. Despite pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin and now she would entice the bishops and the rest of the Church to join her.

In 2008, Sebelius vetoed House Substitute for Senate Bill 389, titled the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act by its sponsors. Proponents of the bill claimed the legislation would strengthen late-term abortion laws and prevent “coerced abortions” particularly with respect to minors.

She has been given high ratings and endorsement from Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider around. It has made a financial “killing” in destroying unborn children under the banner of women’s rights.

The administration was SHOCKED into making a compromise… not because religious liberty was esteemed as an important value in itself.

The Obama administration hopes that the U.S. bishops will accept its proposed compromise (February 10, 2012). However, while we are still awaiting word from our shepherds, I still have serious reservations. The administration was shocked that even liberal Catholic voices were joining the chorus in deploring the initial policy as encroachment upon religious liberty. It was certain that there would be no movement of the Obama Whitehouse away from the giving women free access to contraception. But as Republicans picked up on the issue, election strategists urged an immediate counter-strategy. The offer of a year of grace was insufficient. Is this the best for which we can hope? Might this merely be a ploy to defuse the situation while really changing very little? Catholic parishes, schools, charities, and hospitals should not be forced to provide birth control to employees since such would violate Catholic teaching against artificial contraception. That is the bottom line!

Even if the institution is protected; what about the rights of individual believers? What about individuals and organizations that are not part of the Church administration but are Catholic in values? EWTN, for instance, is a lay organization with a lay board.

The sentiments of Catholics and other pro-life Christians would not be respected by this change. The Church is more than the institution but is found in her membership. Their personal religious rights and conscience would not be respected. I know a doctor who runs her own practice and refuses to prescribe birth control. Now, she would still be forced to pay for it as a health benefit for employees! That is wrong and the Church needs to be a voice for people like her. Similarly, I know a man who refused to take a vaccine because there was the remote use of embryonic material from an abortion. He would rather close shop than add his money to the purchase of abortifacients.

The First Amendment protects not only the rights of churches but the individuals who make up those faith communities. Even if Catholics should themselves personally dissent, continued membership implies that they still respect (on some level) the teachings and the authority of the Church. I suspect that President Obama miscalculated in thinking that Church teaching was subject to polls or that liberal Catholics could force further passivity upon the bishops. This new measure might protect Church institutions and pamper dissenters, but it would hang faithful Catholic citizens out to dry. Their rights would not be respected.

Nothing has really changed, what we have here is only magical sleight-of-hand.

The revised rule says that religious organizations would not have to offer or pay for contraception. So far, so good; but then it stipulates that health insurers would have to take up the cost and provide it directly to women for free. Does this really leave the employer out of the equation? It seems to me that what we have here is a new version of the old shell game. Nothing is really free. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. What will happen is that premiums will go up and people will pay more for a sick person’s needed antibiotic to make up for a promiscuous woman’s contraceptive.

What about those dioceses which are self-insured? Would this force us out of the insurance business?

Another wrinkle, and I see this as very problematical in my own Archdiocese, is that we are self-insured. There is no absolutely independent insurance entity to which we can give the dubious honor of providing contraception. I suppose such a measure would also make it hard for practicing Catholics to function at the leadership level or as CEOs of insurance agencies.

Where do we go from here?

It is not clear to me that the Obama administration really wants to go to the bargaining table. However, the bishops have suggested that this newest offer is a sign that he is willing to make some kind of compromise. It is my interpretation and I admit to being fallible, that there remains a serious hurdle and that we must take to heart Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s remarks in The Wall Street Journal, “Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience.” This really says it all and is the line from which we must not retreat.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has made this statement: “The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.” The statement continues, “We will therefore continue–with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency–our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government.”

We must urge Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Apostolic Tradition Vetoes Priestesses

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Father Joe

The early Christian community kept faith with the practice of Jesus in depending entirely on male priests. The Scriptural witness is ratified at every turn. Although the Virgin Mary occupied an honored status among them (Acts 1:14), there was never any hint that she should replace Judas as one of the twelve (Acts 1:15-26). Further, on Pentecost, despite the universal showering of the Holy Spirit upon the infant Church (Acts 1:13-14), it was left to “Peter and the Eleven” to take on the initial preaching of the Gospel (Acts 2:1, 14). Looking to St. Paul, it is evident that he relied heavily upon the help of women, maybe even more than Jesus did. Paul makes known Phoebe who served the Church in Cenchreae and also many other women who assisted him in his labors (Romans 16:1-16). He counted Priscilla and her husband Aquila among his friends (Romans 16:3), even entrusting to them the completion of his instruction of Apollos in Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul, who said some formidable things about the place of women, is left speechless when Lydia insists that he receive her hospitality at Philippi (Acts 16:14). The great apostle takes it for granted that men and women alike will pray and prophesy when the community gathers for public worship (1 Cor. 11:4-5, 13). Yet, even in the face of all this, he insisted that the leadership in the community and the official teaching come from male office-bearers. I mention all this because sometimes certain post-Christian and anti-patriarchal feminists caricature the early Church as a woman-haters’ club. Far from it, the apostolic community was in many ways more liberating for its women than pagan society; however, women were still not ordained. They felt the very real need to perpetuate the model of ministry established by Christ.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Priestesses, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Uncategorized, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

The Seed of the Woman versus Satan

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Father Joe

The devil is going to lose his grip. The tide is turning in the war with Satan:

“Then the dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Revelation 12:17).

There is a clear demarcation between sides. Saluted by an angel as “full of grace,” the image is one of perpetual opposition to the serpent or dragon. The great fight has begun and the war will be won in Christ. Her spiritual children, the saints and martyrs, will offer themselves along with Christ in this warfare between powers and principalities.

This opposition between Satan and the seed of the woman, Christ, is indicative of the opposition between good and evil. Christianity does not really speak of metaphorical clashes between bad and good, life and death, sin and grace. As with the term of our faith and salvation itself, this tension is real and personal. We are not envisioning any kind of oriental principles or forces. Further, there is no equality or balance between good and evil. Whatever scenario is played out, the game is fixed.

The ultimate winner will always be God.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

SOLT Press Release on Father Corapi

Posted on July 5, 2011 by Father Joe

The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity has put out an official press release on the FATHER CORAPI SCANDAL. Fr. Gerard Sheehan, the superior writes:

“While SOLT does not typically comment publicly on personnel matters, it recognizes that Fr. John Corapi, through his ministry, has inspired thousands of faithful Catholics, many of whom continue to express their support of him. SOLT also recognizes that Fr. Corapi is now misleading these individuals through his false statements and characterizations. It is for these Catholics that SOLT, by means of this announcement, seeks to set the record straight.”

While I can appreciate the need for a statement, I must admit that I am surprised at the bluntness and the depth of revelation. He remarks about the investigative process and what they discerned from emails, witnesses and other sources that has been going on during the time of the priest’s public ministry:

Fr. Corapi already handed in his resignation in early June.
He paid $100,000 to silence the woman making charges.
Other witnesses were similarly silenced and Fr. Corapi refused to release them for testimony to the investigative team.
He had violated his promise of poverty by holding legal title to over one million dollars in real estate, luxuary cars, boats, etc.
He cohabitated in two states with a known prostitute, recently began sexting one or two women and resorted to repeated drug and alcohol use.

I would not normally even post about such matters, but I can well appreciate the frustation of his superior. Fr. Corapi is a powerful communicator and people love him. If he is guilty of such things and is falsely placing the blame on the leadership of the Catholic Church, then public correction needs to be made. Having said this, I think that the leadership in SOLT must be faulted for allowing this situation to grow so out of hand. They should have reigned him in years ago. Their passivity has now made for a far worse and more scandalous situation. The press release continues:

“SOLT has contemporaneously with the issuance of this press release directed Fr. John Corapi, under obedience, to return home to the Society’s regional office and take up residence there. It has also ordered him, again under obedience, to dismiss the lawsuit he has filed against his accuser.”

A letter of resignation would not release him from his priestly promises and those made to SOLT. A good priest does as he is told. This is a bad situation all around. I wonder how Fr. Corapi will respond? I suppose die-hard fans will contend that the evidence is contrived and that the priest is innocent. And indeed, I would still argue that if he is innocent then he should make his case and work with the process. It is unfortunate that Fr. Corapi has forced this whole matter and scandal into the public forum. But souls are at stake and this delicate situation is about more than one man. If he is guilty, then he should demonstrate sorrow and contrition, placing his ministry and future into the hands of his lawful superiors. It would be a wonderful teaching moment and maybe the highpoint of his ministry. Christ is speaking to him through his superiors. That is how priestly obedience works. But will he listen? Will he fight for his priesthood? This battle cannot be won with militant rhetoric or tactics of subterfuge. He can only find victory by being a faithful son of the Church and a humble priest. He must be courageous and forthright about any revelations exposed by the truth. He must reckon himself as any confessor to be the first among sinners, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” Things will never be the same but God may not be finished with him yet. I pray that Fr. Corapi will make the right choice and work with God’s grace in this.

An element which really upsets me about this situation is how one segment of the Church is set against another. Father Corapi comes under investigation and the priest comes out with a statement that the bishop and his superior have a right to do what they do; but next he talks about the real enemies of the Church and we all know he is targeting those who put him on administrative leave. Then he claims obedience but his personal corporation makes a statement that they are under no one’s thumb and the ministry media business will continue as if nothing has happened. By the beginning of June he submits his resignation and tells his fans weeks later that the Church has forced him out. Bishop Michael Mulvey and his lawful superior, Fr. Gerard Sheehan, SOLT, seek to clarify matters but then there is the public intervention on his behalf of the founders of SOLT, Father Flanagan and the Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Bishop Rene Gracida. Critics and fans of the priest can now take their pick and decry the other side as wrong-headed or evil. The impression is given that the Church is fighting with herself. Despite the lament of Fr. Corapi that this is a plot of the liberals who are out to get him, the battleground that emerges is between very conservative or orthodox churchmen and laity. Liberal revisionists are no doubt having a delight in watching the so-called “religious right” of the Church rip itself apart over the media priest. This has all the makings of a new voyeuristic television program called THE BATTLING BISHOPS. Since the clarification released from SOLT, I notice now that Bishop Gracida seems to have shifted somewhat from supporting Fr. Corapi to attacking SOLT for allowing the situation to develop in the first place. However, it seems to me that the stage was set by those who initially allowed Fr. Corapi to set up his independent operations. In other words, there is blame enough to go around. It is troubling that Bishop Gracida took a public stand against a man’s lawful superiors even though he admits that he has not talked with the priest for years! Now Fr. Corapi is telling his fans on Twitter to look forward to an important announcement on Thursday. Enough already! I discern a manipulation of good men behind all these tensions that is due to evil human machination and/or to the intrusion of something devilish.

Phil Lawler at CATHOLIC CULTURE succinctly tells it as it is:

Like the late Father Marcial Maciel, the disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ, John Corapi has worked for years as a celebrity priest: encouraging a cult of personality, setting his own agenda, raising large sums of money that he spent at his own discretion, and—most dangerous of all—accountable to no one. It was a formula for disaster, and now the disaster has occurred. Again.

I would beg people to separate the truths Father taught from the possible failings of the messenger. All are tempted, but the devil delights in targeting priests; while he could not seduce the high priest Christ, he often settles for corrupting those men who participate in his priesthood. Pray for priests, pray for Father Corapi and pray for “the little ones” who might despair of their faith.

I am done with this topic, but will give Father Corapi the last word:

FINANCES…”From the earliest days (more than twenty years ago) the Founder of the Society of Our Lady, Fr. James Flanagan, encouraged me to support myself and the Church as well.”

IMPROPRIETY…”I have never had any promiscuous or even inappropriate relations with her.”

INVESTIGATION…”As standard practice, my legal counsel advised me not to cooperate with the investigation until I was able to determine that the Commission’s process was fair and I had adequate rights to defend myself.”

HUSH MONEY…”I never paid anybody off to remain silent.”

RESIGNATION…”I resigned because the process used by the Church is grossly unjust, and, hence, immoral. I resigned because I had no chance from the beginning of a fair and just hearing. As I have indicated from the beginning of all this, I am not extinguished!”

CLICK HERE to read the SOLT press release.

CLICK HERE to read my post on this matter last month.

A good friend feels that this topic and the argumentation associated with it is not good for me. It is true that I find it very upsetting. I love the priesthood and the Church. I get defensive when they are threatened. I also worry deeply about the good of souls. It is true too that the plight of a brother priest is always felt very personally. Many of the comments, moderated and mostly not posted, are unreasoning and angry. So I am going to end it here. Orignally I posted a video here that gave Father Corapi the last word, albeit with an advertisement tagged to it. However, he has liquidated his business and removed all signs of his web presence. He is gone from sight, but maybe not from our minds and hearts. Keep him and the people he impacted in prayer.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Corapi, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Forgiveness, Morality, News, Priests, Religion, Repentance, Sacraments, Sexuality, Uncategorized | 21 Comments »

The Book of Revelation: A Discussion About Interpretation

Posted on April 26, 2011 by Father Joe

The Book of Revelation is not given to easy interpretation. It cannot be deciphered in a literal or fundamentalist manner that seeks to make quick and easy contemporary correlation. We have to appreciate it as a particular form of literature that utilizes symbolic and allegorical phraseology. Similar such writings of this genre appear in Daniel, Zechariah, and Ezekiel. While many will interpret it strictly in terms of future events, it actually has a great deal to say about the crisis in the early Church and her future hope.

11:7 – “And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them, . . . ”

This beast was understood to be the antichrist, the one who symbolizes evil in his own person, the Roman emperor, Nero. Christians witnessed to their faith by shedding their blood. (See Rev. 13:1-8; 17:8).

11:8 – “ . . . and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”

While it is geographically true that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, this is not the thrust of the apocalyptic text here. Rather, the emphasis is upon the figurative Jerusalem that repudiates God and his witnesses. This is clearly the new “Babylon”, another code word for pagan Rome. See chapters 16 through 18. (Anti-Catholics go so far as to make the leap in logic that the beast and his city are not the pagan emperor and Rome but rather the pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Such a view violates the meaning of the text and defames the sacrifice of early Catholic Christians.) “Sodom” and “Egypt” are symbols for immorality (cf. Isaiah 1:10) and for the oppression of the people of God (cf. Exodus 1:11-14). The authority of pagan Rome crucified Christ through its emissaries. Christ is being crucified anew in his members. It is an early holocaust of the Christian believers at the hands of a bloodthirsty pagan Rome.

The Book of Revelation is composed to deal with a specific crisis. Believers of Christ are dying in droves and the inspired author is urging the Christian community not to abandon hope or to betray the Lord. Jesus’ promise comes to mind: “ . . . and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Catholic Christians are reminded that God has not abandoned them.

Hope this breakdown helps, although it hardly exhausts the layers of meaning here.

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

GIO: I don’t know. When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the explanation of Fatima in 2000 upon the revelation of the third secret, he compared the Angel with the fiery sword in Revelation to the Angel that the children saw at Fatima, saying something like “the risk of judgment looms over us.”

ARMANDO: Shalom! Fr. Joe, I am a devout Catholic and I’m very curious about the Catholic interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Father, can you tell me, who is the second beast? Who is this beast with a name equivalent to 666? I believe in the messages of Our Lady of Fatima. Actually, I’m praying the Rosary four times a day since I started working here in Saudi Arabia. I hope for your kind reply to these questions because I categorically don’t believe other interpretations of the Bible. I believe in the Catholic view alone, because it is the only true Church founded by Christ with its visible Head as St. Peter and His successors. May the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob richly bless us all always! Thank you very much Father. I will include you in my prayers.

FATHER JOE: I would recommend a faithful Catholic commentary and a Catholic Bible with good footnotes. 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.

ARMANDO: May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob richly bless all always! Father Joe, thank you very much! I learned just yesterday night, from Brother Michael of EWTN about the intimate relation of the Book of Revelation to the Holy Catholic Mass. It enlightened my heart and mind so much and it strengthened my Catholic faith even more. You know Father, I’m actually a Catholic Charismatic and I’ve been serving the Lord since I was 10 years old through our humble St. Joseph Chapel in Ibabao, Cuenca, Batangas, Philippines. I’ve been a choir guitarist up to the present here in the Muslim country of Saudi Arabia. We are without a Church and must worship in secret. Despite this situation, my friends and I, Filipinos and an Indian, started a small Prayer Group. We pray the Holy Rosary, singing praise and worship songs. I lead a Catholic Bible Study. You know, Father, we are very happy because there are many Catholics who turned away from our Church but now turning back again because of Catholic Life in the Spirit Seminar or CLSS. Two more questions Father: when will the 1000 years of peace happen and is Satan already loosed? Mama Mary, pray for us.

FATHER JOE: You are from the Philippines! My brother married a Filipina a few years ago and traveled to Manila to see her family. I have many Filipinos in my parish here in Maryland, USA. Many are far better educated. You can ask questions of faith and I will do my best to answer. But, please understand, I am quite fallible. The Catholic Church does not teach a millennium rule. Rather, we believe that when Jesus comes he will consummate all things to himself. As for when the second coming will happen, we cannot know for sure, despite various signs. Look at Matthew 24:36. Our Lord tells us that “no one but the Father knows the day and the hour.” As for Satan, look around the world today. He is still very much around and prowling about for souls to devour. Trust Jesus and Mary. Invoke the special aid of St. Michael the Archangel. May God bless you!

ARMANDO: Shalom again, Fr. Joe. Why is it that the Catholic Church does not teach a millennium rule since it is written in Revelation? Am I right that maybe it’s not a literal 1000 years of peace? And what are those seven plaques w/c the 7 angels brought?

FATHER JOE:

The notion of an earthly kingdom ruled directly by the Messiah finds its roots in the Jewish aspirations of a military and political leader. This imagery is picked up by the Scriptures but the time of Christ’s rule is spiritual and found in the Catholic Church and her sacraments. The new Zion or Jerusalem is, similarly, not the political state of modern Israel but the Church. Some authorities claim that a false Messiah or Christ will seek to establish an early kingdom. Here we are talking, not about Christ but about the anti-Christ. It is said that he would persecute the Church.

There are seven plagues preceding the destruction of Babylon. The imagery is borrowed from the plagues of Egypt.

[1] Men and beasts are smitten with ulcers (Exodus 9:9-10).

[2] & [3] The seas and rivers become blood (Exodus 7:17-21).

[4] The sun burns men to death.

[5] The throne of the beast causes great darkness (Exodus 10:11-29).

[6] The waters of the Euphrates are dried up and form a passage for the kings of the East (Exodus 14).

[7] Storm and earthquake destroy Babylon.

The Catholic Church gives no literal or fundamentalist interpretation to these plagues. It is enough that there will be both man-made and natural calamities.

Pope John Paul II (February 2003) identified seven deadly plagues that threaten the future of humanity:

[1] an insidious terrorism capable of striking at anytime and anywhere;
[2] the unresolved problem of the Middle East with the Holy Land and Iraq;
[3] the turmoil disrupting South America, particularly Argentina, Colombia and Venezuela;
[4] the conflicts preventing numerous African countries from focusing on their development;
[5] the diseases spreading contagion and death;
[6] the grave problem of famine, especially in Africa;
[7] the irresponsible behavior contributing to the depletion of the planet’s resources.

ARMANDO: Thanks again, little by little, the Book of Revelation is getting clearer to me. Is the “holy city Jerusalem” in Rev. 21: 10-21, the same as the New Jerusalem which symbolizes the Church? Why does it have walls, gates, foundation stones, etc?

FATHER JOE: The heavenly Jerusalem is paradise. The New Jerusalem is the kingdom breaking into the world through the Church. The Church is an extension of the Church in glory.

CATHOLIC GIRL:

Gio, during the Fatima apparitions, Our Lady gave the children a horrific vision of hell. They said that so many souls were going there so fast it was like snowflakes falling. She also told them that one of their school mates – a child – would be “in purgatory until the end of the time.” Without the Mercy of God, no one would be saved but his sword is a mighty sword of justice.

As far as Revelations, I feel that the Protestant “Tim Lehaye” books (and movies) have spread heresy into Catholic beliefs. Here in the south, it is the most argued point in adult Bible study. It is another aspect of too little knowledge of the faith. In a class I was in, where a Nun from the Seminary literally went through chapter by chapter, people walked out – and many called the Chancery swearing that SHE was the heretic. Most Catholics simply do not understand that we are not literalists as far as the Bible goes.

I often wonder why Catholics do not have more organized Bible Study (with nuns or priests as a guide). I think a lot of eyes would be opened.

ARMANDO: Father, does our Church teaches about rapture? I do not hear any priest teaching about this matter. And what is Armageddon?

FATHER JOE: The Church believes that Christ will consummate the world to himself. Rapture as understood by certain Protestants and in the LEFT BEHIND books is not part of Catholic teaching. As for the conflict against the anti-Christ, we are already in the thick of it. The Church does not insist upon a literal final battle in the Middle East. Apocalyptic literature cannot be read like a history book.

CHARLIE: It is true that the book of Revelation is complicated. I can’t stop thinking though how Revelation 17 and how the Woman fits the description of the Catholic church.

FATHER JOE: Mary and the Church is associated with this woman (with child). However, the Church is NOT the harlot or “whore of Babylon.” Be careful not to associate the Church with the anti-Christ. There have always been grave sinners in the Church; but the Church is holy because Christ is holy.

CHARLIE: It seems to me that the church is trying very hard NOT to tell us the REAL meaning of Revelation.

FATHER JOE: Give me an instance. Why is it that you, as a Catholic, would put your personal interpretation of Scripture over that of the Magisterium? If you believe that the Church is evil, why are you still a Catholic. Sorry, this does not wash! You are buying into all the conspiracy theory nonsense.

CHARLIE: With the church being around for so long and with all the scholars in the church, they could be more specific like all the other churches when it comes to interpreting Revelation.

FATHER JOE: How is the Church not specific? Apocalyptic language is inherently difficult, given our proximity in time and place from the source. Other churches, and I can just imagine what fundamentalist authorities to which you refer, make up or fictionalize their commentary. The Catholic Church is grounded on truth.

CHARLIE: I almost feel like they are hiding something.

FATHER JOE: Almost? Please, stop playing games. What have you read from Catholic sources about the Book of Revelation that makes you say this? What commentaries? What Church documents? You have cited nothing. You are imagining things. Be careful that you do not deliberately slam the Church.

CHARLIE: We need to understand more and get more input from the church on Revelation because we don’t want to fall into a trap in the end times.

FATHER JOE: [At this point it became clear that Charlie was a ringer or poser. He may have been Catholic but now he was something else. Some anti-Catholics use such deception to get under the Catholic defenses. They may cite catholic sources, but they are not really interested in the truth or discussion. They come to slam the Church and to steal believers.] Then get it already. What are you waiting for? The problem is you, not the Church. Here are a few books you might find useful. Also, look at the footnotes in a Catholic Bible.

The Book of Revelation: A Catholic Interpretation of the Apocalypse by John Tickle.

Apocalypse: A Catholic Perspective on the Book of Revelation by Stephen C. Doyle.

New Jerome Biblical Commentary (3rd Edition) by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy.

CHARLIE: Satan is a deceiver and the father of lies and we need to have a CLEAR picture of things when it comes to prophecy. Now more than ever….with the Prophecy of Saint Malachy and his clear prophecies of the popes…..which by the way are true and we see that even with his prediction of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II. We see clearly that we need more information on the Book of Revelation.

FATHER JOE: The prophesies of St. Malachy belong to private revelation only and are not doctrinal or required for belief. It also appears that they do not belong to St. Malachy but to some anonymous source.

CHARLIE: It says in Revelation 17 that John was amazed by what he saw and this would clearly state to me that he was AMAZED by this vision because perhaps he saw that the church which Saint Peter started was in the end corrupted and polluted by an evil power.

FATHER JOE: Jesus promised that his Church would endure until his consummation of the world.

CHARLIE: I see this clearly as the last Pope predicted by Saint Malachy which he said would lead the church to destruction. Why are none talking about this?

FATHER JOE: It is because the prophesies are not reliable. They are interesting but I place no confidence in them.

CHARLIE: You can’t wait until it happens and have people led astray to the tricks of Satan. I know in my heart the church MUST know things, but chooses to keep people in the dark….because the latter days the church would be led by forces of darkness. It clearly states this in Revelation. “Woman” in prophecy means CHURCH.

FATHER JOE: All you need is to be faithful. Worrying about such things is not from God.

JOHN: I came to this partial understanding around 1980. The two horned goat is USA and Russia. The image of the beast is the Islamic republic of Iran.

FATHER JOE: Such connections are only conjecture. I tend to give the apocalypse a historical understanding. The beast is Nero and the old pagan Roman Empire. Apostate Christians might be the other beast. Anyone who opposes Christ and his Church is an antichrist.

JOHN:

Yes, such connections are only conjecture. Some conjectures are more compelling than others. Consider, the two horned ram and angry beast allegory is first found in Daniel (well before the first century). What is this fire from heaven, but the bombs of two nuclear super powers. The foreign policy slogan of current Iran is “Neither east nor west.” Thank you for your courage, which I know can only come from our lord, Jesus Christ.

I sent the above comments (in fuller form) to Pope John Paul II in the Spring of 1980. The response received was a letter from the secretary of state of the Vatican (July 1980). Here is the text: “The Holy Father has seen the kind letter sent to him, and has asked that I express his thanks, and convey his blessing.”

CHRIS: I think an inspired interpretation of Apocalypse is Steven Paul’s Apocalypse: Letter by Letter. Very sick with cancer during the penning of his book, this staunch Catholic had an intimate understanding of Revelation and just about managed to get all his knowledge on paper before his death. I can’t recommend it enough for any Catholic who wants a clear understanding of Revelation.

FATHER JOE: I asked around about Steven Paul’s book and found that not everyone is excited about it. One critic even remarked that there are a number of factual mistakes and interpretations which are contrary to Catholic tradition. A book that I would recommend is Apocalypse: A Catholic Perspective on the Book of Revelation by Fr. Stephen Doyle.

CHRIS: Unfortunately, Steven isn’t around to answer any of his critics. Given that he was a committed Catholic I’m surprised to hear there are elements of his book which are contrary to Catholic Tradition. Do you have an example from his book that I can check out?

JOHN:

It’s my understanding that those who hold anti-Catholic interpretations use the “seven hill” phrase to justify their view.

Must the singular anti-Christ be present for the present age to end? I had thought that Khomeini was such. When popes die their personnel letters are to be burned. When Khomeini died I burned my written interpretations of Revelations. Later, I remembered it was written (by me): “the image to the beast is the beast itself, that is, the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

FATHER JOE: Deciphering possible prophecies of the eschaton and the beast is no easy business. Is there ever a singular anti-Christ? During WWII and afterwards there were many contenders. What I can tell you is that there is ONE Christ. Put your emphasis there and on your relationship with him.

JOHN: Jesus was beaten, scared, and killed. His justice is not, and will not be blind. May he grant us the mercy, grace, and courage to help the needy when we see him. I believe you, Father Joe, have the best job this world has to offer. Thank you for your courage!

NEIL: Very interesting dialogue. I’m a 2010 convert to Catholicism from practically every Protestant denomination out there. I’m quite interested in Revelation and appreciate some of the questions here. Pertaining to Revelation 17, I’ve heard the reference to the Vatican before which never made much sense. An interpretation of the new Babylon being America and the new city being New York, actually registered with me. Are you saying Father Joe that this is referring to the fallen Roman Empire instead? Glory to God!

FATHER JOE: The reference was to pagan Rome. Further connections to present-day earthly cities and nations are merely speculation.

DOLORES:

Dear Father Joe, I am currently involved in a Bible study entitled “Journey through Revelation: Apocalyptic Hope for Today,” written for Presbyterian USA women. I came across your web site while googling for a Catholic interpretation of Rev.12.

I was pleased to read all the queries and responses on the subject of Revelation. The information pretty much jibes with this study and other sources I have read. I was particularly interested in how the Catholic Church interpreted “the Woman” in Chapt.12. I had always thought she was the Virgin Mary, and you did state that in one of your responses. Most of my sources say the woman represents the Church or people of God or Israel. You also mentioned this in the same response.

We are studying Revelation, taking into consideration the time in which it was written, the type of literature that would have been familiar to the people John was writing to, the terrible persecution the early Christians were undergoing— a book of hope rather than a book of prophecy. I’m learning a lot and looking forward to the rest of the study.

I’m glad I found your website. If you have anything more to say about Mary as the woman in Chapter 12, I would be very interested to have the Church’s view. Thank you.

JOHN: I’m so glad Jesus has promised his earthly return and kingdom. The prophetic message ends with this realization. I don’t really care who lines up as the bad guys of prophesy, but that his will is fulfilled. The epistle of Barnabas and Paul’s writings seem to indicate there will be a singular anti-Christ at the end times. The hope of this Christian is to understand and live with his/her God. I am a sinner.

CHRIS: Excerpt from Steven Paul’s interpretation of Apocalypse, p.171, may be relevant to what is currently going on in North Africa/Middle East: “It has already been shown, however, that the Beast will rise from that formerly Roman territory designated as ‘the sea’; therefore, the Beast will initially seize about 60% of the ‘sea,’ not just 30% by violence, because the ‘sea’ comprises North Africa and the Middle East, i.e., about half of all that was once the Roman Empire. Of the ‘sea’s’ two main regions, the Asian is the larger and richer in oil: it includes Turkey and the small countries immediately south of the Caucasus Mountains—Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine. In order to seize that initial 60% of the ‘sea,’ the Beast or ‘little horn’ must take possession of some part of the Asian region along with all of the African, or he will simply take all of the Asian, or he will take much of the Asian and part of the African, such as Egypt and Libya.”

FATHER JOE: I suspect that like many before him, Steven Paul’s interpretation will be proven false. Such preoccupations detract from the true antichrists that surround us and who may even share our homes. All who are spiritually dead in mortal sin are opposed to our Lord.

DEBRA: Father, I am a revert. I am reading John’s Revelation. I have read these threads. Yours is a voice of reason and common sense. Thanks be to God for that. Please pray for me.

NEIL: Father Joe, what do you make of the locusts in Chapter 9? I’ve heard opinions that they are attack helicopters. Also, what are the Four Living Creatures mentioned in Ezekiel and Revelation? God Bless!

FATHER JOE: They might only be a blight of locusts.

JOHN: It puzzles me that Catholics, and Christians as a whole, argue over facts. For example, what does it matter weather Mary was taken up alive, bodily, or died and rose the usual way. Some things don’t affect the heart, one way or another. While it doesn’t hurt to put out a heartfelt opinion, to state it as fact, though it’s objectively non-provable, does no one good. Jesus’ resurrection is provable by its result.

FATHER JOE: Catholic Christianity treasures both faith and reason. That is why the facts about things are important and worth the appropriate discussion. Looking at your example, you seem to miss the whole point of Mary’s Assumption. Catholic doctrine is very clear: at the end of Mary’s earthly life, she remained incorrupt and was taken body and soul into heaven. The issue as to whether she “fell asleep” or “died” is not a contentious one for the Magisterium as both perspectives are acknowledged. What actually is death if one is not consumed by the grave, anyway? Her corporeal assumption is a critical point because it resonates with Christ’s resurrection and ascension. She is seen as the first fruits, or evidence that our Lord would share his life and victory with others. Mary is a figure for the Church. (It is this connection we find in the Book of Revelation.) We are also promised a share in eternal life and the restoration of our bodies and souls. This honor is granted her because of her unique role in the history of salvation. Her assumption flows from her cooperation with Christ’s redemptive work as the Mother of God and the Immaculate Conception. Our sentiments about Mary are not merely matters of the heart, but declared dogmas of the Catholic Christian faith.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Bible, Catholic, Church, Eschatology, Faith, Jesus, Uncategorized | 39 Comments »

Fortifying Ourselves in the Defense of the Faith

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Father Joe

Many anti-Catholics only speak in general terms and with isolated proof texts from Scripture. Why? I suspect that their lack of background is part of it. Personal inspiration is an element of his or her faith that makes every such believer into his own Pope. Anyone, who contradicts them, obviously in their own minds, is deceived and/or lost. Further, fundamentalism tends to discredit cultural and language elements, or else offers a narrow interpretation. Often believers are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Catholics, parroting their ministers and the leaders of their bible study groups. An element of seduction associated with fellowship is also at work. This emotional quality can make any rational discussion difficult or impossible. History is also avoided or skewed so as to avoid the legacy of Catholicism and its contribution to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Critics have sometimes challenged me for being too general in my arguments. Nevertheless, while on Internet message boards I always preferred a response to the deletion of a post. Of course, some comments are so vulgar and offensive that they must be deleted. These critics would then argue (no doubt from minimal experience) that such an approach was typical of Catholic priests who cannot answer and feel trapped regarding so-called biblical truths. What really troubled this priest was the total disregard for scholarship and objectivity in answers. I did not make them up; they were the conclusions of learned scholars of faith, filled with the Holy Spirit.

Many of the more vocal anti-Catholic fundamentalists claim a Catholic background. Often it is quite minimal or contrived. A number of them have bragged to me about receiving all the sacraments and even getting married in the Church. As in following a formula, the next thing they report is that doubts arose when they started to read the Scriptures. I always suspect that they had “some help” to come to their anti-Catholic conclusions. Such is frequently proven to be the case, although these facts are at first withheld.

There is a purported moment of personal awakening and they discover that the Bible teaches contrary to Catholic doctrine and practice. What are some of the alleged problems?

1. The claim of the Catholic Church that the Bible is a Catholic book written for Catholics only.

Well, we do believe that the Catholic Church today is one with the Christian community established by Jesus and that is chronicled in the New Testament. This much is true. However, we also believe that the Holy Scriptures may be efficacious for all: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. It is in a unique fashion, “our” book, but we as Catholics do not begrudge it to others; indeed, they may find true consolation and encouragement toward conversion in its pages. We are glad to have been party to its divine inspiration and composition. It is truly a gift to all humanity. An insistence that the Catholic Church (in union with our Orthodox brothers and sisters) had nothing to do with the development of the New Testament and the establishment of the canon (for both the Old and New Testaments) runs counter to the historical record. Insistence to the contrary remains unsubstantiated. Rather, the fundamentalist simply contends that the Catholic Church has sought to suppress the Bible. This sidesteps the early history of the Bible and the conflicts over errant translations.

2. They insist that there are only 66 books in the biblical canon as opposed to the 73 in Catholic bibles.

The fundamentalist stipulates that Catholics “added” books and yet what happened was that after fifteen hundred years, Martin Luther SUBTRACTED books from it. He says they show no degree of inspiration and that they teach false doctrine– in other words, things offensive to the Protestant reformers and their modern-day offspring in the world today. He says that Christians did not accept these “Catholic” books in biblical times (he must mean apostolic) and yet there is ample evidence that they did. Indeed, the Greek canon containing the disputed books was implemented whenever Jesus quoted the Old Testament in the Gospels.

The biased critic tells us that Palestinian Jews during the time of Christ had already determined the Old Testament canon. This is historically misleading because it dismisses the legacy of the many Jews of the Diaspora. The Pharisees of Palestine set up four arbitrary criteria for the biblical canon:

(1) They had to be in harmony with the Torah or Law as interpreted at that time;

(2) They had to be written prior to Ezra;

(3) They had to be in Hebrew; and

(4) They had to originate in Palestine.

This immediately eliminated Judith (Aramaic); Wisdom, 2 Maccabees (Greek), Tobit, parts of Daniel and Esther (Aramaic and outside Palestine), Baruch (outside Palestine), and Sirach and 1 Maccabees (written after Ezra). All Jews did NOT generally accept this canon until a century AFTER Christ. There is evidence that the rabbinical redactor was also motivated by a concern to make the Hebrew Scriptures distinctively different from the canon used by Christians. From the earliest days, the Christian Church accepted the Jewish canon from the Greek-Roman tradition, the ALEXANDRINE CANON. As I have said before, Jesus himself quoted from this bible and the canon was not seriously challenged until the Protestant reformation. It should be noted that Martin Luther also rejected New Testament books. It is interesting that while Protestants accept Luther’s abbreviated Hebrew canon, they replaced the books he stripped from the New Testament. What did he remove? He eliminated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (Apocalypse).

[GOOD SOURCE: Notes to the Fireside New American Bible (2011), p. xiv-xv.]

3. The anti-Catholic fundamentalist routinely claims that it is easy to prove the non-existence of the Catholic Church in the earliest days and yet they offer no real proof whatsoever.

Why? It is because it cannot be done. Rather, he attacks elements of the Church that have organically developed over time. This is like saying the boy did not exist because he did not yet resemble the man.

NO POPE? – Except regarding “fatherhood” (papa/pater), the word was not used, but this does not dismiss the role of Peter and his successors. Their authority remains, no matter what they are called.

NO PRIESTS? – There is ample evidence of men who participated in the one priesthood of Christ.

NO SACRIFICE OF THE MASS? – Here is the utter dismissal of the command of Christ at the Last Supper to perpetuate it “in remembrance” of him. The cultic and sacrificial language of the setting is unavoidable.

NO NUNS? – Of course, there were holy women who from their purses aided Jesus and the apostles and later others like St. Paul.

NO MONKS? – St. Paul himself advises a celibate life and imposes severity upon himself. The evangelical counsels are in effect.

NO CONFESSIONAL? – Jesus and then his apostles would make possible the forgiveness of sins. Even today, no special room is absolutely required.

NO PRAYERS TO MARY? – And yet, there are Scriptural examples of orations to consecrated figures or spiritual messengers from God.

NO PURGATORY? – Although Jesus offered ample evidence in his statements that some would need to be purified by fire and pay the last penny.

The anti-Catholic critic throws out one issue after another, making a concerted response on any one topic difficult to impossible. He needs no evidence, the charge itself is a proof in his own reckoning and unfortunately, enough to influence weak minds.

Catholics agree that those who had a saving faith sought baptism. However, he speaks about the various local congregations as if there were no unity with one another. Just as today, in reference to the many parishes and dioceses, the Catholic Church is one. Jesus established a Church, not many churches.

He contends that bishops were only the local pastors; and yet, the history of the matter would show that as the churches grew, so did their jurisdiction. These “episcopoi” were literally the successors to the apostles and shared in the high priesthood of Christ. There were many helpers, even though many human elements of the true Church would have to develop over time. Catholicism, for instance, admits that the papal electors (cardinals) represent a later adaptation to insure the smooth transition of authority and the effective running of the Church. There is no need for an absolute return to primitive Christianity. Indeed, because of the size of the Church, it would not work.

Protestant communities which wipe out the gains from most of Church history are forced to reinvent the wheel in this regard.

The assertion that Peter never went to Rome is a denial of archeological evidence, extra-biblical testimony, and the living tradition of the Church. Since it does not appear in the Bible, such fundamentalist critics assume that it could not have happened. The anti-Catholic critic mentions the rebuke and difference of opinion from Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, but says nothing about the fact that Peter gives the decisive decision regarding the initiation of the Gentile men at the council in Jerusalem. He confuses impeccability with infallibility. Papal infallibility does not mean that popes are sinless or that every opinion they have is necessarily right. It is peculiar that anti-Catholic critics will often grant the Pope more authority in their arguments than he actually possesses. Of course, the critics save the final say for themselves.

Let me repeat, at the first council of the Church in Jerusalem, after the debate about ritual circumcision, it is Peter who resolves the matter. The mere fact that Paul and Barnabas had come to Jerusalem illustrated their confidence in the apostolic authority there. As in any council, there was debate and dialogue; however, in the end it was Peter who stood up and supported Paul in his refusal to impose the Mosaic Law upon the Gentiles– they would not have to become Jews before becoming Christians. Citing the work of God’s Spirit in Cornelius and his household, whom they knew and accepted, Peter summarizes the core proclamation of salvation: “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they” (Acts 15:7-11). We are told that the whole assembly was reduced to silence. The issue was resolved. Paul and Barnabas then enthusiastically recounted how God had used them as instruments to reach the Gentiles.

Many distinctions need to be made about Peter. He is certainly much altered after the Christ has suffered, died, and risen. The Holy Spirit on Pentecost grants him a special charism of authority and infallibility.

This did not mean that either Peter or his successors would be impeccable and unable to sin. The miraculous truth in the long history of the Church is that even weak and sinful men have seemed changed by the office of Peter. Without such an authority, we would suffer from the same endless fragmentation and deviation from Gospel truth that other religious communities experience. We believe we have Christ’s Rock to preserve and protect the deposit of faith. Given to Peter, this gift of infallibility is for the entire Church. We see its execution observed when the Holy Father makes a formal proclamation of dogma as the universal shepherd (the Vicar of Christ) on a matter of faith or morals. Neither the Pope, nor the bishops, nor an ecumenical council can manufacture new beliefs– they define something which has always been taught and believed, but reformulate it in a more concise and solemn way. A papal declaration along these terms is an exercise of his Universal Extraordinary Magisterium.

The unanimous teaching of all the world’s bishops in union with the Pope is called the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. This latter expression of infallibility is much more common. The laity and the religious of the Church also enter into this mystery. The Sensus Fidelium (sense of the faithful) among Catholics who have informed their consciences according to Church teaching and who live out the faith also touch upon this mystery of faith. (Admittedly this latter aspect is usually only mentioned by dissenters these days; however, they cite people who have largely rejected the deposit of faith and the Christian life– the ones to whom it does not really apply.)

Anti-Catholic fundamentalists often contradict themselves. For instance, they might argue, contrary to accepted biblical interpretation, that Peter went to the actual Babylon but not to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). However, if he at first disputes that “Babylon” was the designation for Rome coined by early Christians; he next acknowledges it in regards to the Popes and prophesies about the antichrist in the book of Revelation. Of course, now he is confusing the pagan Rome of the old empire with the Christian Rome of the Church.

Obviously, as a good anti-Catholic apologist, he denies the practice of asking angels, saints, or Mary to pray with and for us. Even those who were formerly Catholic seem ignorant of the fact that Catholicism teaches that all prayer has as its proper object, almighty God. Indeed, upon a host of issues, the former Catholics seem to develop a convenient amnesia about the truths and practices they once embraced. Instead, they attack “straw man” arguments, caricatures of a largely false or distorted Catholic faith, which were probably spoon-fed into them by the Church’s enemies.

These critics usually accept the divinity of Christ, something that others (as in cults) often reject. We can at least agree upon this point. He also acknowledges the Trinity. Although, he will fight the Catholic about the term itself since it is not in the Bible.

I remember one fundamentalist arguing with me by shouting a double negative, “We don’t need no mediator except Christ in going to Father!” What he actually means, and Catholics agree, is that Jesus is our Mediator before God and brings our offering and prayer to the Father. The discussion turned to the subject of worship and he said rightly that the Bible prohibits the “worship” of graven images. Unfortunately, he wrongly accused the Catholic Church of doing so. The economy of images is altered by the incarnation, and thus pictures and statues for Catholics are venerated as depicting holy personages or themes, but they are NOT WORSHIPPED. Only God is truly given divine worship.

Context here means everything. Otherwise, one would have to say that the Word of God contradicts itself. The invisible God of the Hebrews absolutely forbid the making of images for purposes of divine adoration. However, he did not prohibit images as such. Indeed, in the case of the ark, they were mandated. Of course, given the inclination of the early Jews to fall easily into idol worship, it is no wonder that the prohibition was often extended and made more severe.

Making a secular comparison, many of us adorn our homes with statuary, paintings, and photographs. We have them for beauty and for sentimental reasons. Is a picture of one’s child or a grandmother vain idolatry? I think not. Neither are depictions of saints and other holy personages.

The anti-Catholic critic condemns the Church for its many volumes on the liturgy and upon doctrine; and yet he makes no qualm about the many words his kind employs to attack us. Why would they deny Catholics the right to share their insights and spiritual reflection upon the Gospel? Any view that does not agree with his own, he considers consider a twisting of Scripture. The anti-Catholic fundamentalist becomes his own final (and flawed) authority.

Such enemies of the Church condemn Catholic remembrance and prayer for the dead, dismissing the second book of Maccabees. And yet, such a practice finds other Scriptural support and is an ancient Christian practice derived from an even older Jewish one.

Almost always their demagogic diatribes must include certain castigation against the role of works in Catholic theology. No mention is made that many modern-day Lutherans and Catholics have come to a consensus regarding justification by faith. They create false parodies of Catholic faith to tear them down. They are surprised to hear that Catholics also teach and preach Ephesians 2:8-9:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God– not because of works, lest any man should boast.”

Salvation is a gratuity from God. The work that saves is the self-offering of Christ. Apart from Christ, we cannot save ourselves. If divine grace is alive in us then our Lord can continue to work in our lives. Everything done by Christ has value or worth.

Toward the end of nasty debates and/or vicious diatribes, many anti-Catholic critics will try to disguise their animus of hatred by saying that they love Catholics or that they do not condemn the Catholic Church. Do not believe them. When they have finished, damning the Church is precisely what they have done.

At points the anti-Catholic critic spouts silliness. He suggests that the Catholic Church disregard all its doctrines for the so-called true Gospel. And yet, her doctrines represent the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Catholics would agree with fundamentalists that men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. God is the principal author of Sacred Scripture. Differences in this regard would be that Catholics do not see such inspiration as a passive dictation but as the use of the whole person with his culture, understanding and language as part of the equation. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? I do not believe so.

Catholics would agree that Jesus is our one Mediator who makes possible our entry into heaven. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? Again, such a teaching is an essential element of the Christian faith. Jesus makes all the difference. The fundamentalist anti-Catholic critic might wrongly claim however that the “Catholic Jesus” is not the same Jesus with whom they have a personal relationship and encounter in the Gospels.

Catholics contend that Jesus rose from the dead. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? But Catholics also believe that the risen Jesus is present in the Church and the sacraments. While he might acknowledge a presence in God’s Word, the fundamentalist critic focuses upon the Second Coming as if Christ’s presence is either locked into the past or waiting in the future. Catholics not only have faith in Jesus, but know his substantial or real presence behind the accidentals of bread and wine.

Catholics contend that Jesus is God and man. This is Catholic doctrine, should we forsake it? Some of the anti-Catholic cults fall prey to the old Christological controversies which plagued the Church in the early centuries. I have heard ministers argue that the Jesus on earth is different than God’s Son or the Christ in heaven. Others subscribe to a faulty Adoptionism as if Jesus was somehow conscripted into being the Messiah and Lord. Others speak about Jesus like the Gnostics of old, certainly divine but pretending to be a mortal man. The Catholic Church possesses the full truth: Jesus is a divine person with a complete human and divine nature. Jesus was the pre-existent Logos or Word who entered human history as one of us.

The anti-Catholic critic paints with broad strokes and condemns what he does not understand. Many Catholics in the past were poorly instructed and their ignorance became fair game for religious bigots and fanatics. It is truly sad. Hopefully this book will help fortify Catholics against such assaults in the future.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Virgin Mary

Posted on March 10, 2011 by Father Joe

Luke 1:26-35: In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband? And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

Luke 1:48: “. . . for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me . . .”

Mary is the mother of Jesus. This truth is attested by the Scriptures and universally held. However, a few verses later in Luke it is written that all generations will honor her. The Catholic Church still venerates her as the blessed Virgin, the mother of the Redeemer who is now the mother of all the redeemed. Fundamentalist churches tend to respond to Mary with silence or with a quick rebuke that she was “only” the mother of Christ. Ours is the Church where the prophecy is fulfilled! Yes, she is a creature like us, although “full of grace” and preserved from sin; but she is the mother of the whole identity of her Son. Her Son is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. As with all mothers, her maternal role never ceases. Truly, she is “blessed among women!” Our honor of Mary imitates that of heaven. As for her assumption, there is precedent in the Old Testament. Unlike Jesus, she is not taken up by her own power but by that of her Son.

For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Evangelization, Faith, Mary, Saints, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Mass Vestments

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Father Joe

Exodus 28:4: “These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban [mitre], and a girdle; they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me, as priests.”

The use of liturgical garb has a growing acceptance even in Protestant circles. There is nothing superstitious about it. Several years ago the evangelist, Jerry Falwell, acknowledged that he was willing to meet the Pope as a fellow minister. However, he suggested that first the Pope should put aside all the silly vestments he wears. The next day there was a picture of Falwell sliding down a waterfall ride at the defunct PTL amusement park. He did so while wearing a three-piece suit. Who is silly? (Coincidentally, I must say, that despite certain disagreements, my respect and admiration for this departed minister, and for his preaching, has grown over the years.) There is clear Scriptural precedent for special vestments to be worn while conducting sacred activities. Vestments are visual tools to help us focus on the meaning and significance of our worship and ministry. They developed from the garb worn in ancient civil society and among their leadership. Such dress changed over time in the secular world but the Church retained the older forms for her own use. This intensified the religious association of such vestments.

For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Mass, Priests, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

The Church is CATHOLIC

Posted on February 11, 2011 by Father Joe

Matthew 28:18-20: And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”

Acts 1:8: “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.”

Romans 10:18: But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”

The Church has always had a universal mission. In every time and place, she is the established means of salvation, the faith community instituted by Christ. The word “catholic” itself means universal or worldwide. While biblical interpretations and belief divide Protestant churches and Orthodox churches are distinguished by national affiliation and origin— the Catholic Church is given to all men and women as the most legitimate and unified voice of Christ in our world.

For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Church, Evangelization, Faith, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »

	Father Joe on The Prayer to Saint Michael at…
	Inveilis on Ask a Priest
	Joanne M Rowan on Reflecting Upon SSPX Dissent…
	Joanne M Rowan on The SSPX Makes It Itself Out M…
	Jeremy on Ask a Priest

Blogger Priest

Our Blogger

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #3 (Debate)

Apostolic Tradition Vetoes Priestesses

The Seed of the Woman versus Satan

SOLT Press Release on Father Corapi

The Book of Revelation: A Discussion About Interpretation

Fortifying Ourselves in the Defense of the Faith

Virgin Mary

Mass Vestments

The Church is CATHOLIC

Calendar

The Awalt Papers

Meta