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.
2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Timothy 2:2: . . . and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
If these statements did not appear in the Bible, I would suspect that “bible alone” believers would immediately pounce upon them as distortions of the truth by Catholics. Most ministers actually avoid such passages, perhaps with the hope that if ignored, they might go away? The Catholic Church is the most literal bible Church of all in that she makes the entirety of Scripture her own. We keep alive the faith and traditions which come down to us from the Apostolic Church.
A number of years passed before the final composition of the New Testament. Some say the Book of Revelation may have been finished as late as 100 AD. And yet, there is a letter from Clement, the bishop of Rome, in other words, a Catholic Pope, written to the Corinthians in 93 AD. The Catholic Church was teaching and preaching even before the Bible was completed. This is a historical fact! The first complete compilation of the New Testament was not officially completed until the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD. This runs smack in the face of those who claim only private interpretation of the Scriptures. The Bible, from beginning to end, is the Catholic Church’s BOOK. It was only after the persecution of Christians and the peace given by Constantine in 313 AD that the Church could share the inspired documents preserved by various congregations. The bishops would then have to authenticate the writings, deeming which ones were doctrinally sound and also inspired. If this decision were deemed infallible and such is implicit by our acceptance of the New Testament books, then this Church is still infallible. If not, then the New Testament can be disregarded as inconclusive. Non-Catholics are unable to go back to review the work of Catholic scholars and bishops since the source documents have long returned to dust. Catholic monks throughout the centuries copied the original papyruses. Protestants must, on this account, TRUST that the Catholic Church worked under divine inspiration. Given that this is the past case— then why not now? This also casts dispersion on any theory of private bible-alone interpretation.
Before the invention of the printing press (1440 AD), bibles were scarce and the cost was prohibitive. Most people were not literate. The Church made recourse to ritual and art to get across the Scriptural message. Any bible alone notion would have excluded the majority from any real comprehension of the truths of Christ and our stories of faith. This would have been ludicrous! To insure that the Bible was not lost, they were often secured in churches so that the unscrupulous would not steal or destroy them. Faith-filled religious spent their whole lives copying the Scriptures by hand. Such care and self-sacrificing devotion is a sure rebuttal against those bigots who insist that Catholics tried to destroy the Bible.
For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
John 20:30-31: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
On one hand the Church is told that the Holy Spirit will teach the Church all things, and yet there is the admission in Scripture itself that it does not include everything. The early Church practices and extends its faith with only a partially written account of Christ’s life and teachings. The living tradition of the Church does not replace the biblical testimony, but supplements and helps to interpret it.
For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
Romans 10:17: So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.
Mark 16:20: And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.
Mark 16:15: And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.”
There is nothing here about a book-religion or any kind of bible-alone church. Rather, we see what the Catholic Church has done for two thousand years. She preaches the Good News.
For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH 2001
Good afternoon, friends and fellow citizens. Two days ago, Americans gathered on the Washington Mall to celebrate our Nation’s ideals. Today, you are gathered to remind our country that one of those ideals is the infinite value of every life. I deeply appreciate your message and your work. You see the weak and the defenseless, and you try to help them. You see the hardship of many young mothers and their unborn children, and you care for them both. In so many ways, you make our society more compassionate and welcoming. We share a great goal: to work toward a day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. We know this will not come easily, or all at once. But the goal leads us onward to build a culture of life affirming that every person, at every stage and season of life, is created equal in God’s image.
The promises of our Declaration of Independence are not just for the strong, the independent, or the healthy. They are for everyone– including unborn children. We are a society with enough compassion and wealth and love to care for both mothers and their children, to seek the promise and potential in every human life. I believe that we are making progress toward that goal. I trust in the good hearts of Americans. I trust in the unfolding promise of our country– an expanding circle of inclusion and protection. And I trust in the civility and good sense of our citizens– a willingness to engage our differences in a spirit of tolerance and good will.
All of you marching today have never tired in a good cause. Thank you all for your conviction, your idealism, and your courage. May God bless you all.
John 14:26: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
The same Holy Spirit that would inspire the writing of the Scriptures came first to the Church and has never abandoned her. Jesus sends this Spirit, not merely upon isolated individuals, but in a nurturing and protective way upon the Church, notably the Apostles and their successors, the bishops. The Spirit of God has preserved our assurance of the truth and our unity in faith. Protestant churches have no ecclesial safeguard and are liable to constant and unforgiving fragmentation.
For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
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.”
This selection from Matthew reveals that Jesus, to whom all authority properly belonged, extended or gave something of his power to his Apostles so that they might teach the truth and baptize in the name of the Trinity. He also tells them that they will not be orphaned; that he will always be with them. Christ will literally continue his saving work through them. Christ will be made present in the proclamation of the Word of God and in the Sacraments. Baptism is the first and the doorway to the sacramental life. Note regarding the apostolic age, that except for the Hebrew Scriptures, there is as yet, no New Testament. The Gospel is entrusted to the Church and only later will this oral tradition be put to writing. Letters will be collected and the Church will determine which books constitute the inspired canon. Except for a few deletions, the Protestant Church only has its bible thanks to the stewardship and faith of the Catholic Church.
For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
One anti-Catholic apologist declared as blasphemy the claim that Catholics “eat” Jesus. In the same breath, he contended that popes forbade bible reading as illegal. Both statements are inexact and misleading. Catholics receive in Holy Communion the sacrament of Christ’s real presence and do so by the Lord’s command. As for the Scriptures, the prohibition was not against reading Scripture but against those translations and texts of the reformers which distorted the true Word of God. Remember, even Martin Luther inserted his own theology into the sacred texts and omitted books (from both the Old and New Testaments) which he found disagreeable. Viewing the Church and the civil society as two sides of the same coin, both Catholics and Protestants alike sometimes exerted undue force in maintaining the ranks and orthodoxy. Exaggerations of anti-Catholics regarding such coercion are not to be taken seriously. Further, the Church herself, then as today, was often incapable to stay the hand of civil authority intent upon using religion as an excuse for intolerance and brutality. Incidents of murder and torture by “unholy Romish priests” are rarely documented; in any case, there is something demented in referencing incidents which happened centuries ago as if they happened last Tuesday.
The Catholic Church is the source for the Scriptures: members from her community were inspired in their authorship and by her own authority she determined the canon. The proliferation of bibles throughout the world was not the fruit of Reformation-Protestantism but of the mechanical printing press. Rome has encouraged the reading of the Bible and has long offered a special indulgence to those who do so every day. Unlike the anti-Catholic fundamentalist, the entire Bible (without deletion of books) is offered her people. Further, her use of a lectionary system for liturgies has resulted in a greater variety of biblical passages than what is usual in Protestant services. The Catholic faith is affirmed by an honest and comprehensive understanding of Scripture while the anti-Catholic resorts to biblical fragments, out of context and ignorantly misinterpreted. One anti-Catholic bigot notes that John 6 is frequently used against him by so-called “idolatrous” and “pagan” Catholics. He cites John 6:51,53-58:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
The anti-Catholic bigot argues that Catholics neglect verse 63 which illustrates, so he says, that Jesus did not mean what he said literally: “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
In other words, until verse 63, Jesus is lying? Sorry, I do not think so. Our Savior is not fickle in his teachings. He would not deliberately mislead and anger the Jews; he meant what he said about the Eucharist. This verse becomes clearer if we look at the one which follows it: “But there are some of you who do not believe.” This resonates with verse 52, conveniently omitted by the anti-Catholic apologist: “The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?’” Did the critic purposely omit this line, knowing that he found himself associated with the disbelieving Jews? It sure seems that way. The Jews are murmuring because they do not like what they hear. Some of their number walk away. They know full well that Jesus means what he says. Their sensibilities, especially regarding blood are offended. They will have none of it. It is a mystery that requires supernatural faith to accept. Verse 63 is not a reference to Christ’s Eucharistic body but is used as it was previously in John 3:6-7. We read: “What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’” “Spirit . . . flesh” is a Hebraic form of speech which does the very opposite of what the anti-Catholic bigot claims. It affirms the truth of Christ’s Eucharistic teaching and that to accept it we must be given the gift of faith by his heavenly Father.
We need to pray that the anti-Catholic bigot will be given a greater share in the true faith. He is usually filled with much anger and hate. He can only measure his own religion in reference to that which he opposes. I would fathom to guess that were there no Catholic religion, he would have no faith at all– or perhaps I should call it an anti-faith? He is quick to judge and to damn Catholics even though there is no consideration that if he is wrong then he has blasphemed the work of the Holy Spirit.
The anti-Catholic may also sin by presumption of God’s saving grace. We live in the “sure and certain hope” of our salvation, leaving our eternal destiny to divine providence. The Lord says, “Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.” While the fruits of Christ’s presence and loving ministry are manifested in the life of the Church, the anti-Catholic critic contends that Jesus shall respond to us with the words from Matthew 7:23, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity!” Many of our Protestant brethren, with whom we would differ on points of doctrine and manners of worship, work alongside us in the promotion of the Gospel of Life. However, the anti-Catholic bigot contends that these groups are contaminated by their association with Catholics and thus are also lost. What can we say to such a critic? If all he understands are isolated bible texts, then let him pay heed to this one: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:15-16).
Every Catholic needs to remember the anti-Catholic and the fallen-away Catholic each time he receives Holy Communion. We need to dedicate our Holy Hours to prayer on their behalf and make reparation for their insults against Jesus, his Mother, and the Church. May our prayer rise like incense to heaven and be found pleasing to Almighty God.
For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
Revelation 18:2-8;24 is often misapplied to the Roman Catholic Church. The great harlot Babylon symbolizes the Rome of pagans not of Christians. Despite persecution and martyrdom, Christians of the first century are urged not to surrender their precious faith in Christ.
What is a Christian?
Since anti-Catholics often renounce the Christian nature of Catholicism, we would do well to look at the sober and rich definition of this question in the universal catechism:
[CCC #1694] Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord (Romans 6:11 and cf. 6:5; cf. Col. 2:12). Following Christ and united with him (cf. John 15:5), Christians can strive to be “imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love” (Ephesians 5:1-2) by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the “mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5), and by following his example (cf. John 13:12-16).
For more such reading, contact me about getting my book, DEFENDING THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
A frequent tactic used by critics of Catholicism is to use verses orphaned from their proper context to impugn or undermine the teaching authority of the Church. They both misunderstand and misapply these passages so as to give their personal interpretation credence against the Magisterium. It is symptomatic of the Protestant individualism that often privatizes faith over the corporate understanding of a Church established and sustained by our Lord.
I write you these things about those who would deceive you. As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. (1 John 2:26-27).
The initial difficulty in attacks of this sort is the very origin of the Bible, particularly the New Testament. The Catholic Church gathered and reproduced the canon of the Bible for the believers. As the Mother of the Bible, the Church and her bishops saw no challenge between biblical truth and her authority. The fundamentalist tends to be short-sighted in his historical assessments. This leads to another problem, in that the text he would use as a weapon against Catholicism becomes his own trap. The effort backfires.
His own role as a teacher of faith contradicts a literal reading of these verses. John speaks here with the authority of an apostle, a role which shall find its succession in the bishops. The warning here is not against the Magisterium of the Church, but against those who would lead God’s people astray. There is no Gospel that saves other than that of Jesus Christ. No community possesses any secret knowledge that surpasses that of the public proclamation of the true Church. Keeping faith in Christ Jesus, the believer is baptized and anointed (confirmation), receiving the Spirit of wisdom, the Holy Spirit. We have a responsibility to know the true faith and to spread it. This is the mission of the Church. The Christian has no need to seek another religious truth and we are to remain in solidarity with the chosen community of faith and in union with God. True wisdom and faith comes as a gift from God.
Further, the Holy Spirit leads the humble person to God. Against the Gnostic heretics, John is defending the Catholic truth that Jesus is the anointed Holy One, the Christ. Jesus Christ is indeed the revelation of the Father. In a certain sense, the “sola scriptura” critic of Catholicism is akin to these ancient Gnostics. While they believe that Jesus is both Christ and Savior; like the Gnostics, they minimize the importance of the material in regards to the spiritual. Thus, the Mystical Body and pre-eminence of the Church is denied, the sacramental signs are ridiculed, and the significance of the body in our personhood is often maligned for its wickedness.
Another interesting element about the verses given is their context. At the end of chapter two, something is said about our justification that is sure to make the anti-Catholic reviewer uncomfortable:
If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who does right is born of him. (1 John 2:29).
A real sign of our being “born again” is our just behavior; dare I say our good works?
The anti-Catholic critic will sometimes resort to trying to scare Catholics. He argues that time is running out and that Catholics, no matter how well-meaning, are in the wrong camp and facing the prospect of damnation.
So then each of us shall give an account of himself to God. (Romans 14:12).
The detractor of Catholicism would do well to read a few verses earlier,
Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. (Romans 14:10).
Dissimilar from most other institutions, the inherent unity of Church members in Christ means that an attack against one is an assault on all. Similarly, if one targets the Catholic Church, then every Catholic believer is between the cross-hairs. The Church is a family. It is not really possible to hate the Church but to love individual Catholics. Hate the family, and you hate all of us. We are the Church.
While certain critical voices would employ such verses in their apologetics, the citation from Romans points to how one’s faith is actualized by the life of charity and following the commandments. We will each have to give an accounting for what we did in the body, either good or evil. While there is a particular judgment for each of us, there will also be a general judgment at the end of the world. Individual souls as members of God’s holy people or those for whom the Church has interceded will be accorded the reward of the just. The communion of saints is a celebration of the unity of the Church among those glorified by grace and thus worthy of heaven. Having repented, they place their faith in Jesus. They are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb and given the wedding garment of heaven as their vestiture. Those who reject the gift of salvation remain lost in their sins. They are separated from God and breached from their brothers and sisters by their own selfishness and iniquity.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:13).
These words are not written for various individuals apart from the believing community; these words regarding the Holy Spirit are directed to the Church as a whole. This promise of Christ is fulfilled when the Holy Spirit descended upon the infant Church at Pentecost. Imaged as tongues of flame over the heads of the apostles, the leadership of the Church would always be enlightened and protected in the truth. Individual members can and should invoke the Holy Spirit for wisdom. But, the gift of infallibility and steadfastness in the truth is conferred upon the Church, particularly the Magisterium, and not to every individual believer. The assurance of Christ’s teachings require that members of the faith take seriously the guidance of their lawful shepherds and that they seek to conform their hearts and minds to that of Christ realized in the teaching Church. Our Lord speaks to us through his Church.
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! (Galatians 1:9).
Apart from Christ’s true Church, ministers and the people who follow them fall ever further from the truth. Fundamentalists might love this verse, but it also places them under divine judgment. Originally it applied to those missionaries who insisted that pagans had to become Jews before becoming Christians. Thus, circumcision and other Jewish rituals would be placed on par with the saving Cross of Christ. Paul denounces this activity and insists that his is the correct Gospel proclamation. Catholics place faith in Jesus and consider baptism as the manner in which we join the new People of God and are touched by Christ’s saving activity. The verse can in no way be applied against the Catholic Church. Ours is a faith in continuity with history: to the early Fathers, to the apostles and to Christ.
Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand. Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; … (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Paul recalls the living TRADITION which he himself received and transmitted to the Corinthians. Paul stresses their faith in Christ and in his saving actions against the views of those who would deny the bodily resurrection of the Lord. Catholics believe in this very same Gospel and retain the ancient traditions repudiated by many non-Catholics.
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus….” (Acts 16:30-31).
Here the anti-Catholic critic is purposely deceptive. As the verse reads, it appears that salvation is an entirely personal matter. Nothing could be further from the case. The complete verse reads as follows,
“And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” (verse 31)
We read further:
So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. He brought them up into his house and provided a meal and with his household rejoiced at having come to faith in God. (Acts 16:32-34).
Can we presume that even the babies of the household were baptized? Most probably it is so. The household or family becomes the setting for the “little church.” The gift of faith brings people to Christ, not simply as isolated individuals, but corporately– as a family in faith.
Whoever possesses the Son has life; whoever does not possess the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:12-13).
Pope John Paul II stressed this crucial element of the Good News in his encyclical on the Gospel of Life. Christ is the author of life and makes possible our share in eternal life.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. (John 3:16).
Again, this is a central teaching of the Catholic faith. Those who would use it to stress belief or faith profession over the merits of the Christian life would do well to read verses 20-21:
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.
We believe as Catholics that God will show his face to those who search for him with humility and with sincere hearts.
When you look for me, you will find me. Yes, when you seek me with all your heart… (Jeremiah 29:13).
God is the source of our being. He gives our lives meaning. As St. Augustine would say, “Our hearts are restless O Lord, until they rest in you.”
I wrote this commentary back in April of 2007. Given that we are coming up to the March for Life in a week’s time, I thought I would repost it.
Mr. Sean Hannity: “I have no problem with birth control. It’s a good thing.”
It was this statement and attitude that was to result in a sad spectacle of dissent on Church teaching and disrespect to a Catholic priest. It should be noted that Mr. Hannity claims to be pro-life, although he makes exceptions for abortions in cases or rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. A rule is only as strong as its exceptions, and thus this really reflects a moderated pro-abortion stance. A child conceived through rape is still innocent and cannot be understood as an unjust aggressor. A child of incest or sexual abuse is still a human being entitled to the right to life. A child’s life and that of the mother cannot be measured on a scale as to which one is more deserving to survive. All human life is incommensurate.
Mr. Sean Hannity invited Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International to the television show, supposedly to discuss the matter of dissent on contraception by high profile Catholics, particularly in the media. It turned out to be a setup forum for Hannity to enact revenge against the priest for questioning his Catholicism and judging his dissent.
Regarding the recent public clash between Mr. Sean Hannity of FOX News and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, I must come down on the side of the good priest. Compounding the matter, the “sometimes” FOX News analyst Fr. Jonathan Morris scolded Fr. Euteneuer and inadvertently aided dissenters on birth control. He said that Fr. Euteneuer “exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment,” and was mistakenly “brandishing law without palpable love.” However, the truth be said, Fr. Euteneuer hardly got a word in edgewise. I do not think undermining Church teaching was Fr. Morris’ intent, but it has been the result. As one purported Regnum Christi member said, “If a Legionary of Christ supports Hannity, then he must be in the right!” Personally, I think a general clarification from the Legionaries is required and Fr. Morris should be directed to terminate his formal association with FOX News. He was ordained to be a priest for Christ and the Catholic Church, not for Murdock’s neoconservative news propaganda machine. He has compromised himself.
Fr. Euteneuer reveals that he sought a private meeting about the subject with Hannity back in 2004. Nothing came of it.
Even a number of people who disagree about artificial contraception admitted to me that the priest was treated pretty shabbily after being invited upon the television show. There was no real discussion of the matter at hand. The priest was kept on the defensive and given no opportunity for a proper response. Mr. Hannity contended that the priest had no right to judge him and that he should worry about the outrageous cover-up of pedophile priests before coming after him. Of course, Mr. Hannity makes such judgments on his television and radio shows regularly. This was not the real problem, just that he disliked being under the gun, himself. Further, a priest is not any Christian. He is appointed by Christ as a minister of reconciliation. This role requires that he be a judge of souls and that he speak clearly about what is right and wrong.
Mr. Hannity argued falsely that Fr. Euteneuer had not spoken out forcibly about sexual abuse and the scandal of bishops who did not take it seriously. What Mr. Hannity did was to take the attention off him and to move it elsewhere, insinuating that Fr. Euteneuer was being hypocritical. Mr. Hannity also quickly appealed to the fact that not everyone is Catholic, as if that is an excuse for a Catholic in the public forum to renounce an important element of our moral teaching. Such an appeal to relativism is tragic from a figure who purports to be a political conservative. He had apologized for eating meat on a Friday of Lent. Fr. Euteneuer rightly observed that there is a big difference between the inadvertent violation of a Church discipline and the repudiation of a doctrinal or moral teaching, as here touching upon the Theology of the Body and the openness to human life that must be present in every instance of the marital act.
Mr. Hannity asked again and again, more in a rhetorical fashion than in actuality, “Do you know me?” He said he had been in seminary and had studied Latin. When I heard this I began to scratch my head, so what? The news anchor was becoming incoherent in his tirade against the priest. Were we suppose to give him a gold star for being an altar boy? Fr. Charles Curran, the great dissenter on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc. also went to seminary and studied Latin…such things did not make him right or insure that he had the mind of the Church about all matters.
NOTE: When challenged by Fr. Euteneuer, Hannity made a big deal out of being a former altar boy and “seminarian” who studied Latin. Actually, his “seminary” training consisted of attending a boys’ Catholic High School called St. Pius the X Preparatory Seminary in Uniondale, NY. Most of its graduates, like Hannity, were not headed for the priesthood. He was a college drop-out and his “theology” courses were nothing more than high-school and grammar school catechism.
Let us cut to the quick, Mr. Hannity is a neo-conservative in the political arena who leans toward liberalism in the area of Catholicism. It is fine and good that he has urged his children to be chaste and celibate until marriage. He might be anti-abortion, and about this we should all be pleased, but he is not consistent given his stance in favor of certain exceptions and artificial contraception. He even went so far as to mock the priest with what he saw as an inconsistency on Catholicism’s part, a so-called Church-approved birth control, i.e. contraception, Natural Family Planning. But, of course, NFP is not true contraception, it is simply periodic abstinence based upon a knowledge of the body and how it works. It is a way to regulate or space births. Further, unlike the pill or condom, NFP can be used to help couples get pregnant, since they know the times of maximum fertility. If one were to use NFP in a selfish way then it could also be turned into a sinful practice. One may space births but not turn against the meaning of the marital act.
The priest was able to squeeze in the truth, under the mantra of Hannity’s unending assault, that a majority of those who have abortions do so because of contraceptive failure. Artificial contraception is indeed the handmaid to abortion. This is what the priest knows and what Mr. Hannity refuses to admit. It creates a contraceptive mentality which fuels the holocaust of abortion. Nothing was said about the fact that certain forms of contraception are also abortifacient. But, as I said, the interview was not a civil exchange of ideas, but an opportunity to malign a priest who wanted to help Mr. Hannity to be consistent and to insure that Catholics know that contraception is a grievous matter not to be flippantly handled.
In writing to Fr. Jonathan Morris, who chastised a fellow priest and gave solace to Hannity, Fr. Euteneuer writes:
The question that comes to mind is an obvious one: if you are a Fox analyst on Catholic matters, wouldn’t you have been the one to have had those “private conversations” on birth control with Mr. Hannity? How about discussions on his abortion exceptions? When you told Sean “in person” that you “disagreed with him,” was it on the issue of birth control? If you had done that, I applaud you, but your powers of persuasion may need a little honing—Sean has only gotten more vocal on this issue over time. If you did not speak to him about his public dissent, then I ask you, “Why?” While we are on the subject, have you also analyzed and disagreed with Bill O’Reilly’s perfectly horrible disdain for the Holy Father and the Church that you represent?
The church sex abuse scandal was not just about homosexual and predatory priests. It was about clerical negligence and silence on issues that not only affect people’s souls but also ruin people’s lives. It is highly unusual that you or anyone else would want a priest to be silent on issues that affect the salvation of souls. We used to recognize “admonishing the sinner” as one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and I consider my admonishment of Mr. Hannity to have been done in that spirit. I might also add that in doing so I have fulfilled my duty as a priest which is a requirement for my salvation.
Further evidence that Mr. Hannity suffers from a poor faith formation as a Catholic is the following notation at the HLI site:
Mr. Hannity is not backing down, saying on Monday’s radio program that if he were excommunicated he would call the Rev. Jerry Falwell and ask to join his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va.
No one, of course, is talking about excommunication; that is just his continuing hysterics about this matter. But note that he would join a Baptist Church, no doubt because of their “political” conservatism, but one that is silent on a weighty moral matter like artificial contraception. Doctrinal differences between them and Catholics are enormous. He would reject the Pope, much of the deposit of faith, and the sacramental life, particularly the Eucharist, to maintain his dissent. He would embrace a Protestant sect and forever turn his back on the sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Blessed Sacrament in exchange for grape juice and loaf bread. Even a knowledgeable Catholic excommunicant, if his faith be real, would want to come home to the sacraments and to the true Church established by Jesus Christ.
As I watched a fellow Catholic priest spar with you on the March 9 edition of Hannity and Colmes, I hung my head in shame and sadness. My colleague in religion (whom I’ve never met) used the public airways and Internet to call you a heretic and hypocrite. Because he chose to do this in a public forum, I want you and your viewers to know, publicly, that as an analyst of this television network, I believe this good priest, who does great work, exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment. I consider his willingness to give his personal opinion about your status within the Church inappropriate and ill-considered, to say the least.
While Fr. Thomas Euteneuer and I may disagree on how best to attain this lofty goal in certain venues, like on a secular television network, we are of one heart and mind on substance.
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.
PRESIDENT OBAMA 2011
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH 2001
One anti-Catholic apologist declared as blasphemy the claim that Catholics “eat” Jesus. In the same breath, he contended that popes forbade bible reading as illegal. Both statements are inexact and misleading. Catholics receive in Holy Communion the sacrament of Christ’s real presence and do so by the Lord’s command. As for the Scriptures, the prohibition was not against reading Scripture but against those translations and texts of the reformers which distorted the true Word of God. Remember, even Martin Luther inserted his own theology into the sacred texts and omitted books (from both the Old and New Testaments) which he found disagreeable. Viewing the Church and the civil society as two sides of the same coin, both Catholics and Protestants alike sometimes exerted undue force in maintaining the ranks and orthodoxy. Exaggerations of anti-Catholics regarding such coercion are not to be taken seriously. Further, the Church herself, then as today, was often incapable to stay the hand of civil authority intent upon using religion as an excuse for intolerance and brutality. Incidents of murder and torture by “unholy Romish priests” are rarely documented; in any case, there is something demented in referencing incidents which happened centuries ago as if they happened last Tuesday.
Revelation 18:2-8;24 is often misapplied to the Roman Catholic Church. The great harlot Babylon symbolizes the Rome of pagans not of Christians. Despite persecution and martyrdom, Christians of the first century are urged not to surrender their precious faith in Christ.
A frequent tactic used by critics of Catholicism is to use verses orphaned from their proper context to impugn or undermine the teaching authority of the Church. They both misunderstand and misapply these passages so as to give their personal interpretation credence against the Magisterium. It is symptomatic of the Protestant individualism that often privatizes faith over the corporate understanding of a Church established and sustained by our Lord.
Blogger Priest 