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.
Given his identity as a divine Person and the Savior, there is no avoiding the significance of Christ’s constant emphasis upon the reality and prospect of hell for many. Those critics who are quick to say that Jesus does not judge are fooling themselves and are in denial about our Lord’s stance in the Gospels. Indeed, while the number 144,000 for the Elect in the Book of Revelation may be symbolic, it is telling that the Bible admits to only a select few being saved. While there is a universal call to salvation, the unpleasant truth remains that while all humanity is the beneficiary of redemption, many misuse their freedom in rejecting the gift of salvation. We might hope and pray that the devil is lonely and that most go to heaven, but this is neither indicated by Scripture nor by the constant evidence of human iniquity. Indeed, the many apparitions of Mary attest to hell. The vision given to the children of Fátima is particularly frightening:
01. “. . . a vast sea of fire. Plunged in this fire, we saw the demons and the souls of the damned.”
02. “The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, having human forms.”
03. “They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames which issued from within themselves, together with great clouds of smoke.”
04. “Now they fell back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair . . .”
05. “The demons were distinguished from the souls of the damned by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals.”
The main element of the vision is fire. Lúcia admits that if it were not for the Blessed Mother’s promise of protection, they would have died from fright at the horrendous spectacle. It is interesting that she discerns a distinction between damned humanity and angelic demons. Men and women retain their human forms even though they have been blackened by the flames and have become translucent, thus lacking substance.
It is peculiar that the damned are thrashed about by explosive flames from within themselves. Note what Jesus says in John 14:23, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.” As with the natural world, the supernatural hates vacuum. Either we become temples to the Spirit of God and grace or else, something demonic will come to nest in the human heart. Hell is not simply around them but inside them.
The demons are similarly burned and transparent but are in the form of terrible beasts or monsters. There is nothing left of their angelic beauty.
While the term “antichrist” is reserved to the letters of John, that does not mean the rest of Scripture or Church tradition is silent on the subject. Given the importance of God’s revelation, we should examine the warnings of such prophecy with an inquisitive and sober faith. It is crucial to be informed about such a troubling figure. Of course, it is even more vital that we know and have a relationship with the Lord. While the word “antichrist” is seldom used in Scripture to identify an enemy of the Lord’s people, the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible at all, and yet, it is the most important revelation from Christ about the identity of God.
Concurring with the Church fathers, it is not a great stretch to associate the “antichrist” with the Pauline “man of lawlessness.” Our Lord tells us in 1 John 2:18 that there are “many antichrists.” This should not surprise us. How often have we attributed to the chief devil Satan what has transpired from his underling demons. No analogy can be made with the communion of saints; rather, there is always a parasitical relationship when it comes to evil. One cannot understand the devil and the damned without an appreciation of Legion and “their” relationship in spiritual manipulation, obsession and possession. I am reminded of the dictator Adolf Hitler. Everyone wonders how such a wicked man could come to power; and yet, he seduced much of a nation as accomplices in his horrific acts. Remember, he never personally or immediately tortured or murdered anyone; but he orchestrated the politics of hate and gave the orders. While there is likely a hierarchy, all who oppose Christ are antichrists.
Rejecting God & Denying that Jesus Christ is Lord
Our Lord also tells us that the antichrist is not simply one who has wicked designs or who commits overt sin. The bar is way lower than that. The title is granted to any who would deny that Jesus Christ is Lord (1 John 2:22). This goes far beyond the Jews of old who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Jewish messiah. It would today include the vocal atheists who argue that Jesus did not rise from the dead and that there is no God or any source for intelligent design behind creation. They would reduce the universe to mathematics and chaos, two odd bedfellows for sure. Their assessment is damnable because such signifies that there is no ultimate meaning and that we are merely a cosmic accident. Thus, we are not loved by something unseen and when we die, we become merely the fodder for worms.
Oddly, it would sometimes seem that the atheist places greater credence in the devil than he does in almighty God. Noteworthy is the Satanic Temple, a pseudo-church for atheists who officially claim not to believe in either Satan or God. Viewing much of religion as superstition, they formally promote agnosticism. However, their feigned Satanism may be more real than they know, given their active promotion of abortion as their formal worship (check their website). The devil may most infest the souls of those who deny or doubt his existence. Abortion or child sacrifice was traditionally viewed as the chief worship of pagan idolaters toward false gods, regarded by the Church as the feeding of demons.
Those who are antichrists (note the plural) are preeminently fools. They are misled and they allow themselves to be misled. The evil that seduces them offers nothing of hope and joy. It targets God and people of faith with hatred or indifference. Rejecting God, the only thing they might possibly merit is deep existential despair.
The Spirit of the Antichrist
The antichrist is not merely someone or something coming (future tense); extending back some 2,000 years, we are told that “the spirit of the antichrist” was already in the world (1 John 4:2-3). While all the real power was with the Spirit of God, the spirit of the antichrist wrestled within divine providence for the souls of men. It was the terrible dynamo for the devil’s forces in a cosmic clash between kingdoms. Satan could not fathom the parables and a paradigm shift where love was stronger than hate and the cross was transformed from a sign of defeat to one of victory.
The spirit of the antichrist has Judas point Jesus out in the garden, betraying him with a kiss. It fueled the indignation of Caiaphas in condemning Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Like smoke, the air was thick with this dark spirit. Indeed, Pilate’s stark stoicism was shaken by this spirit. He was taken aback by the rumors about Jesus and was shocked by the cries of the crowd, “Crucify him! Crucify him?” Warned by his wife’s dream and struggling with the “truth” about Jesus as a king and an innocent man, he discerned something of the antichrist’s invisible presence enveloping Jerusalem. It was a twilight time of darkness and shadows. Fearful as the procurator over a rebellious nation, he gave the crowd what they wanted. Either from personal regret or as spite against the religious leaders, he labeled the Cross with a parchment, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” The crowd announced that “We have no king but Caesar!” Who would reign, Christ or antichrist? Christ’s followers would know persecutions, first by their own Jewish people and later by Rome. Caesar or the Emperor Nero would be identified as antichrist. But he would not be the last.
Also noted by Christ is that his own will confess that he has come in the flesh. Those who deny this truth are branded as guilty of deception and as antichrists (2 John 1:7). The apostle John speaks of the flesh of Christ in reference both to the incarnation and to the Eucharist. How many today might exclusively look to an earthly historical Christ (locked in the past) or to a biblical Christ (locked in the pages of a book)? Many may claim Christ but as a human prophet or sage, not as saving Lord. They fail to appreciate that we must encounter him now and in our lives. Otherwise, any relationship with him is inconsequential. Increasingly, I see shocked expressions when I exclaim, “Jesus is God!” The spirit of the antichrist cannot assail the real Christ so it must fashion a parody that is not divine and has no power to save.
The Antichrist versus the Eucharistic Christ
Millions of Christian believers claim Jesus but repudiate Catholicism and its Eucharistic Christ. And yet, along with his saving Word (which disposes us to the unbloody re-presentation of his oblation of the Cross and his Eucharistic real presence), this is the chief way in which we encounter and receive him. The kingdom of Christ and its worship is defined by the Eucharistic action and presence. Wherever we find the true Church, we find the Eucharist and vise versa. The spirit of the antichrist attacks the mystical Body of Christ and the Eucharist. It cannot help itself. While in truth the Eucharist is medicine for the soul, the spirit of the antichrist treats it as poison. Back in 2008, the atheist biology professor Dr. Paul Myers at the University of Minnesota told his students that Catholic teachings constitute “a crime against the human race.” He instigated the so-called EUCHARIST CHALLENGE where he urged students to steal and to profane hosts given out at Mass. Indeed, he recorded his own desecration of the Blessed Sacrament for YouTube. The antichrist prefers a real absence to any real presence. He caters to sacrilege over adoration or worship. He would have us focus upon the minister and not upon Christ in the sacrament or acting in the priest.
What is the context for John’s emphasis upon the flesh or real presence of Christ? The early Church struggled against the heresy of Gnosticism. They viewed flesh as evil and denied the humanity of Christ. They proposed the lie that Jesus only pretended to be human. Such a notion undermines the redemptive work of Christ. What is not assumed is not redeemed. The Gnostics and others guilty of heresy were and are antichrists.
The Man of Lawlessness & the End of Days
We are living in the last days. Indeed, the whole history of the Church takes place during this stage of salvation history. The question arises, are we entering the “conclusion” to the End of Days? While we might discern signs, only Christ knows for sure.
While some authorities would argue that the antichrist and the man of lawlessness are not one and the same, I would argue that there is a conjuncture between these two themes made popular in apocalyptic appreciation. St. Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness as one filled with hubris (2 Thessalonians 2:1–4). He would take to himself, as did Nero, the worship that belongs to almighty God alone. This is the tie in with the term antichrist. The early Christians were martyred because they refused to compromise their faith in Jesus by rendering false worship, not just to the pantheon of Roman deities but to the emperor. All they needed to do to satisfy the authorities was to throw a pinch of incense upon the fire at the emperor’s shrine. A failure to do so marked a person as an enemy of the state.
First, there is no denying that the Scriptures speak of many antichrists. However, such would not mean that the singular “man of lawlessness” referenced by St. Paul can be delineated from them. He is most certainly one of their numbers. The Jews, themselves, had suffered challenges from many would-be messiahs and false prophets. Of course, the leadership erred in supposing that Jesus was just another one that had come along. They were blind to the signs and wonders that pointed toward his legitimacy.
Second, there is ready confusion in the early Church between the time immediately following Christ’s ascension and the second coming of Christ and the End Times. Many supposed that the second coming would occur in their lifetimes. This was certainly the gossip about the apostle John. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the persecution of the Church by Rome would only add to the speculation of a more immediate eschaton that would consummate history and bring about the last judgment.
Thus, it is not overly precipitous to conflate the antichrist with the man of lawlessness. Nero becomes the archetype or standard for such a figure. He is the ruler of the world, a man regarded as a god, and his rule is hailed as the “peace of Rome.” Rome burns and he scapegoats the Christians. Believers are sent to the Colosseum to suffer the sword or to be devoured by wild beasts.
Personally, I am uncertain as to whether there will be a final charismatic antichrist or man of lawlessness at the end of human history. But I would not be surprised. What we can say is that there are many figures in the history of the world who would have been fitting candidates. Speculation does not really get us very far. The politics of hate in our own country has many pointing to President Trump as the apocalyptic figure. And yet he purportedly seeks to defend religious liberty and opposes abortion on demand. Many have suggested Hitler and Stalin. Others target men of great wealth and power. I suspect if he emerges, he will be a person of both charm and intelligence. He may even be an overtly religious person. But there will be something off about his presence. He will carry something of the occult or supernatural about him. I can only speak for myself, but I have a few guesses about the “son of perdition.” There is an odd interpretation of prophecy that he might be a man without a soul. I had always thought this was ridiculous, even impossible. Today, I am not so sure. The human soul is the indestructible element of the human composite. It is where we posit intellect and will. Lacking a soul, one would be a beast or machine.
Speculation about the Beast: A Man without a Soul
As a seminarian I was warned by a professor about wasting my time with bad books. What he meant were books that favored tradition over his so-called enlightenment of progressive dissent. I would argue that informed minds should read all sides of questions, giving gravity to magisterial teachings. At the time I was unaware of his theological bias and thought someone had informed him about my love of science fiction and comic books. The fanciful and speculative works gave me delight going back to the days of my youth. Why do I mention this? It is because you never know where you might pick up something useful for theological reflection. I recall yellowing copies of AMAZING STORIES from 1939 to 1942 that mesmerized me with tales of a sentient robot. Written by Eando and Otto Binder, the short stories followed the life of Adam Link, a robot who became self-aware. This was the inspiration for the later robot stories of Isaac Asimov. Many of the themes were also explored in the android Data from Star Trek the Next Generation television show and movies. These portrayals tend to be positive, and the machines come across as more “human” or innocent than the flesh-and-blood people around them. But how can a machine or mechanized mannequin possess self-reflective knowledge and genuine free will (loving) if there is nothing analogous to a human soul? Atheistic materialists might reduce everything to numbers, calculation speed and memory capacity; but people of faith believe that the immortal soul is what separates us from the animals. I am also reminded of the novel Colossus from 1966 by Dennis Jones. The first of three books, the first made into a movie, the novel centers around a couple of super-computers that take over the world. While not in any sense a man, the conjoined super-computers would certainly qualify as candidates for antichrist.
Let me spell out what I am trying to say, and it is all speculation at this point. The Book of Revelation claims that the “beast” will receive his power from Satan. Indeed, it has been suggested that instead of a soul, he would be animated by a demonic spirit. Again, such a hypothesis first struck me as impossible and mad. It would signify a dark and perverse parody of the incarnation. Would such a man be truly human? Why would God allow a monstrosity of this sort to be born? But maybe such a creature would emerge from our side of the equation. When the Archdiocese of Washington initiated its I.T. program, I reminded the presenters that “IT” was the name of the dark controlling mind in the 1962 children’s book, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle. It was the first in a series about a cosmic battle between the light and the darkness. Today, we live during a time when (A.I) artificial intelligence and robotics can mimic men in discourse and visual movement. Even with only virtual bodies, we can be readily fooled into thinking the characters on screen and talking might be real. Along with this technological breakthrough, certain exorcists have argued that they have seen signs of demonic manipulation on the internet. Talk about the devil being in the details. If the demonic can invade men and their technology, might the feared beast be a child of humanity, not through the loins but through invention and technology. All this comes at a time when there is genetic manipulation and soon, we will have children with orchestrated DNA and produced from artificial wombs. Elon Musk is hailing the advent of Neuralink and human/computer hybrids with implantable brain–computer interfaces. While there might be benefits, have we fully thought out the perils that face us? If the man of lawlessness sees himself (or itself) as superior or immortal, might he not demand worship from those entirely fashioned by nature from the womb?
I read a recent posting that quoted the Russian orthodox priest, John of Kronstadt, on the matter of evil. He said that evil is simply “a chance misfortune, an illness, a devilish reverie.” He went on to say, “But the very essence of the person is the image of God, and this remains in him despite every disfigurement.” I immediately felt a need to make a qualification. It is broken down into thirteen points.
First, it is true that every human person is made in the image of God. However, this is a characteristic of every human being, both the Christian and the unregenerate. This speaks to the natural dignity of all human beings.
Second, our spiritual adoption as sons and daughters of the Father through faith and baptism takes this to a higher supernatural level. This adds upon our human dignity, divinizing or perfecting our nature by grace. Even the damned in hell were made in the image of God, it is more important that we should be remade into the likeness of Christ through the transformative power of divine grace.
Third, the essence of a person is the core of who he is. This sense of identity is intricately tied up with all the things that make each of us who we are— our values, faith, relationships, learning, emotions, etc. This is the awareness of self that we take with us in our trajectory of existence. Angels are purely “spiritual persons.” Men and women are “human persons,” literally spiritual-corporeal composites. A human person is neither a corpse nor just a ghost. That is why the resurrection of the body is essential. (The infused soul is understood as the locus for the mind and will. Dietrich von Hildebrand would also distinguish the “heart”). Jesus as the Son of God shares our human nature and even has a human soul; however, he is also the eternal Logos or Word and is thus a “divine person.” Personhood answers the question, “Who are you?” Jesus is God.
Fourth, the Catholic faith has a rich Christian anthropology that targets the human person, the plight of sin (both personal and original), his awareness, the matter of conscience, the value of virtue and the detriment of vice, and the supernatural impact of both sanctifying and actual grace.
Fifth, evil is not a mere accident like stumbling over a rock. While we reject strict determinism, nothing really happens by chance. The mysterious providence of God both directs an active divine intervention and permits a passive tolerance for natural maladies and the use and misuse of human freedom.
Sixth, fault is always on our side of the equation. All moral evil has a human or angelic agent. The primordial fall itself unleashed the further calamity of natural evil. Creation is good but damaged.
Seventh, while evil or sin might be likened to an illness or contagion, our Lord has given us the remedy in faith and the sacraments. More than a devilish “reverie,” evil is a negation, a miscalibration— more a deception than a fantasy.
Eighth, while our Lord can forgive evil acts, they cannot be blindly excused. Our Lord surrenders his life for sinners, as an act of satisfaction or propitiation for sin. He pays the price we cannot pay. Mercy is real but justice must be preserved. We must want to be forgiven. We must know a disposition in faith and sorrow for forgiveness. Indeed, it is evil that makes the incarnation and the subsequent redemptive act of Christ so very crucial. The gravity of evil is not in the acts but in the “persons” that commit them. We are properly formed by sacrifice and virtue. We are disfigured by selfishness and vice. The saints cooperate with divine grace and live out the commandments in love. The damned reject the favor and helps of God, preferring rebellion and self over others and the Lord. Putting it bluntly, if you do bad things then you may become a “bad” man or woman.
Ninth, our likeness to Christ can be forfeited by serious sin. It is a dogmatic teaching that there is no such thing as absolute evil, either angelic or human. Such would constitute the absurdity of metaphysical negation. This teaching is linked to the teaching of hell and the divine economy against annihilation. Nevertheless, evil need not be absolute to be damning. Unrepentant sin and hubris corrupt the person and distorts the likeness made possible by grace. While repentance and conversion are possible, a pattern of iniquity makes it increasingly unlikely. Such people become what Dr. Scott Peck calls “the People of the Lie.” While the Lord’s mercy is immense, his judgment is real and severe.
Tenth, priests would have penitents confess evil acts but ultimately their focus is upon the status of the person. Absolution is directed toward a person needing forgiveness and healing. A condition for mercy is sorrow for sin and amendment of life. The priest wants to fill the void left by sin in the person. The devil has nothing to give. We need both sanctifying and actual grace. A person without such grace is like the walking dead. Evil does not have to be absolute to be terrible and disfiguring. A Picaso painting of a person might be judged as a masterpiece, but if anyone actually resembled it, he or she would be judged a monstrosity. Any natural goodness becomes mute if we should die and face judgment while in deadly sin. Again, one can be evil without that iniquity being absolute. Such evil does not even require us to clearly hate God or neighbor. Indifference and not caring is sufficient to damn a soul.
Eleventh, most if not all of us wear masks, even virtuous men and women. Humility might hide the advanced compassion and holiness of a good person. We would urge the saints not to hide their light under a basket as it can guide others to the truth. Some would argue that sin and evil is a mask that certain people place before their goodness as creatures made in the image of God. I suspect that what is more common is a mask of false sanctity and charity worn to disguise that which is foul and selfish. There are also plenty of wolves in sheep’s clothing seeking to devour the flock. Is that not part of the scandal around abusive clergy? Yes, and about this we need an intense transparency. Evil must not be allowed to hide. Martin Luther argued for juridical imputation— that one is saved by disguise, literally allowing Jesus to stand before us and the Father. Catholicism would claim transformation— that the heavenly Father must see his Son alive inside of us. The plight of sin is that it would deprive us of this indwelling and that supernatural advancement of human nature.
Twelfth, if evil can be a mask, it is a poor one that always disfigures our likeness, even when it is removed through divine judgment. Just as we can be perfected by grace, we can become corrupted by vice— we literally become the lie. I am reminded of an episode of The Twilight Zone entitled “The Masks.” Taking place on Mardi Gras, a dying man coerces his family members into wearing grotesque masks reflective of their dark personalities. When it comes time to remove them, their faces are found to be molded into the ugly caricatures. Sin is more than hiding behind a lie. One can also become the lie.
Thirteenth, Jesus speaks to how evil disfigures the person. Referencing the ungodly and hypocritical, he states: “You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). He also says: “Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?” (Matthew 23:31-33).
I become so infuriated with a presumptuous Pollyanna faith. We must remember that saints are made on earth, not in heaven. Salvation is a gift, but we must truly desire the gift. We are not promised perfect happiness in this world and death will not procure it for everyone. Evil is real and it is more than an accident or a mask to the good. It infects and corrupts and disfigures the person. Hell is real and the damned fashion it in the here-and-now. They carry it around with them. Like Milton’s Satan, they can cry out, “I myself am hell.” The tragedy is that many resist the grace and mercy of God. The two great motivations in the life of every Christian should be to worship the Lord and to save souls. Love is indeed the answer, but too often it is found wanting. We fail to pray. Many neglect the Mass. Too many are indifferent to the poverty, pain and oppression of others.
Pope Francis left his scripted remarks and spoke “spontaneously” to the youth of Singapore on Friday, September 13, 2024. The Holy Father made a distinction between a courageous person who seeks the truth as a “critical” thinker and the critic with “endless words” who offers “destructive criticism.” He asked them this question, “Do you have the courage to criticize but also the courage to let others criticize you?”
Impressed with the capacity of youth for interfaith dialogue, he stated: “This is very important because if you start arguing, ‘My religion is more important than yours…,’ or ‘Mine is the true one, yours is not true….,’ where does this lead?” One of the young people answered, “Destruction,” and the Pope responded, “That is correct.”
He went on to say, “Religions are seen as paths trying to reach God. I will use an analogy; they are like different languages that express the divine. But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God’s children. ‘But my God is more important than yours!’ Is this true? There is only one God, and religions are like languages that try to express ways to approach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian. Understand? Yet, interfaith dialogue among young people takes courage. The age of youth is the age of courage, but you can misuse this courage to do things that will not help you. Instead, you should have courage to move forward and to dialogue.”
He went on to speak about the need for respect and the danger of bullying. He concluded by saying, “And now, in silence, let us pray for each other. In silence. May God bless all of us. In the future, when you are no longer young, but you are elderly and grandparents, teach all these things to your children. God bless you and pray for me, don’t forget! But pray for, not against!”
Is the Holy Father’s emphasis the methodology of dialogue or the reality of God as revealed in world religions? I suspect it is the former. It is true that interfaith dialogue does not go very far when the different sides disrespect and deride each other. People of conviction feel that they are right and take exception to challenges toward what they believe. Pope Francis is correct that we must resist the temptation to argue and name-call. Civility demands that we temper our emotions, especially against criticisms that are quickly taken to heart and are painful. Those of us with pugnacious natures, instinctively want to hit back. History is largely written with such a lack of toleration that leads to violence, censorship, holy wars, torture, imprisonment and even death. The language of hate allows for no dialogue and little in the way of successful debates. Instead of discussing ideas, there is a harsh attack against persons— the opposition are decried as “heretics,” “heathens,” and “infidels.”
Each of us likely believes that his or her religion is the best or the truest, such is even the case for atheists who posit their non-religion or anti-religion as having a higher epistemological value. As Catholics, the most resolute believers are correct to maintain that our faith is the genuine revelation of God through the mediation of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant is the consummation of the Old. Both Judaism and Christianity are judged as true religions. Of course, a natural religion has been surpassed by a supernatural religion that understands God to be both one and a Trinity. Other religions may have elements of the truth, but they are also weighed down by serious errors. Traditionally, apologetics would list all the many false teachings and practices of these other belief systems. By contrast, Pope Francis is saying that this is not where dialogue begins. Such an approach closes minds to the truth and to any possible consensus. It is best to begin dialogue by examining the elements of faith that are shared. This will vary between creeds. Catholics and Jews both embrace Abraham as our father in faith. We have taken the Hebrew Scriptures as our own. Islam also believes in one God and claims facets of a shared revelation. The Hindus are arguably polytheists, but some of their modern-day teachers suggest that their many deities may in truth be manifestations of a single God. Where such thinking will go, I cannot say. Even if there should be no or little congruence on matters of theology, dialogue can be judged as successful if we learn to live in peace and to work together for a better world where human rights and freedoms are respected.
Yes, religions are seen as paths to reach God. However, we as Jews and Catholics understand religion as also the story of how God comes looking for us. There is a two-fold movement. God establishes relationships (covenants) with his people. The analogy of religions as different languages to express the divine is accurate. Left unsaid is that some languages are better in their evocative and descriptive power. Christianity not only espouses God-talk but has been given the revelation of how the eternal Word becomes flesh. The lack of such an appreciation is a defect that handicaps all other religions. God gives us his Word in Scripture, but more importantly writes his revelation upon human flesh in the incarnation. Jesus is the face of God and the revelation of the Father. He is the way and the truth and the life. There is no way to the Father except through him. Other religions, if they do not go off in the wrong direction, can only take their adherents to the door of the kingdom; it is Christ that lets us inside. His Church and the sacraments constitute the key to that door.
Are we all God’s children? As in the catechism and at Vatican II, a distinction must be made. Spiritually, through faith and baptism, we are made adopted sons and daughters of the Father. It is in this sense of grace and a new creation, that those of other religions are not children of God. However, the meaning of Pope Francis is in the sense of creation. All in the human family are creatures and children of the earth. Our source is almighty God. Regeneration aside, we are all arguably children made in the image of God. We are creatures of flesh and blood and soul. We are so much more than the animals around us. This notion speaks to human dignity. It is a major element of the Gospel of Life. In or outside the womb, God looks upon us with a Father’s love.
Knowing that he is speaking to a crowd of mixed faiths, Pope Francis asks that they might pray for each other in silence. Notice that he prays that God might bless them, but he refrains from asserting the saving name of Jesus. While we might question timidity regarding the name of Jesus and/or making the sign of the cross, we should remember Pope Francis’ words about courage. Certain Christians will not pray with Catholics. While we can pray the psalms with Jews, it is quite problematical to pray with non-Christians. We do not want to open such young people to rebuke or punishment from their own religious leaders. Importantly, we as Catholics must not subscribe to any form of religious indifferentism or the notion of universal salvation. Silent prayer is probably the best for all in such a situation.
ADDENDUM
Anyone with a smidgen of Italian can appreciate that the text on the Vatican website (yesterday) is not actually what the Pope said to young people in Singapore. Previous popes tended to be more careful with off-the-cuff or spontaneous remarks. Officially, the text that matters is the written one, today on the Vatican website and/or included in the published Acta.
When I was informed about a translation change, I went immediately to the Vatican site. What the hell? The official translation had at least corrected the Pope’s remarks. Now, the Vatican has returned to what comes across as deeply problematical. Last night, the text read, “Religions are seen as paths trying to reach God.” Yes, this is true, regardless as to whether they do so. This morning it has been changed to “All religions are paths to God.” This is not true. Even those in false religions reject this notion. Reading further, the initial papal text asserted, “There is only one God, and religions are like languages that try to express ways to approach God.” Yes, this is true, even defective religions are efforts to approach the transcendent. But the new version is as wrong as wrong can get, “There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God.” Not all religions target the true God. Indeed, it is Christ as the term of salvation that makes possible our reconciliation with the Father. None are saved apart from Christ and his Church. Further, not all religions are the same. Satanism and demon worship are counted as religions, but there is no redemption, just alienation and loss. Certain religions worship false gods or even demons.
Many years ago, I precipitated the ire of several activist homosexuals with criticism of their movement toward normalization and the enabling from politicians who made claim to the Catholic label, like the late Senator Ted Kennedy. My old blog was barraged by negative critics, and I was reported to the archdiocese for hate-speech. However, in truth I was merely doing what any pastor of souls should do, echoing the truths of Christ’s Church.
There have been a notable number of websites labeled as hate sights for quoting the Bible, notably Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” This sin is bookmarked by prohibitions against adultery and child sacrifice on one side and by a condemnation of bestiality on the other. This is ample evidence of how the earliest believers called by God viewed such transgressions. Many clergy worry that one day any word from the pulpit against sodomy may result in arrest, fines and maybe even imprisonment. Up-and-coming politicians like Cory Booker view both the killing of unborn children (as with feeding them by fire to the demon Molech) and same sex marriages as protected human rights. Arguing that the termination of unborn children is healthcare, he states, “Abortion is not just a ‘women’s issue’ it is a human rights issue. Which is why we must continue to fight for legal and safe abortion access!” Supporting gay marriage he states, “We aren’t just talking about ‘gay rights.’ . . . We are talking about human rights.” He says this as a supposedly good Baptist. But, alas, the truths of the Bible are readily dismissed for the fads and fashions of an immoral secular world.
There is pressure being exerted to change the teachings of the Catholic Catechism. Already there are bible exegetes seeking creative ways to misdirect or devalue prohibitions against intimate same-sex activity. Paragraph 2357 labels homosexual acts as a “grave depravity” and homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered.” It is a violation of divine positive law (Scripture) and the natural law. It is the chief sin that brings down destruction upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The prohibition of the Old Testament is confirmed in the New. St. Paul is definite about the moral gravity and writes:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
He repeats himself in 1 Timothy1:8-10:
“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient; for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine . . . .”
Homosexual sin is described as a symptom of spiritual alienation from God. It is no wonder that the many voices for inclusion and welcome in the Church for gays also repudiate purity and charity while demanding full normalization of perversion. Instead of the reprobate reforming, the impetus is placed upon the Church renouncing the law of God and nature. We read in Romans 1:24-27,
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed fore ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
Today, many are claiming the term “disorientation” is mean-spirited or cruel. But I would argue that it is both descriptive and civil. The slurs of Pope Francis illustrate that there are a lot worse words we could use to describe those afflicted with this inclination. I must qualify this by noting that a few orthodox commentators are quick to explain that there is no sin in the disorientation, only in the same-sex acts. Yes, this is true, but it is not a neutral matter. It signifies a real and dangerous woundedness. The Church’s enemies appreciate this point and it is for this reason that they seek to prohibit and/or make illegal any efforts at therapeutic repair or correction of the orientation.
Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “Most believers take the Bible or whatever their religious text may be as absolute truth. This is a matter of faith, something that atheists often have a hard time understanding or relating to. Atheists often point out the unknowable nature of an all powerful creator or concept of God or many gods. Without scientific proof, they find it illogical to believe so strongly in something that plays such an important role.”
Critics of Scripture often play fast and loose with how Christian believers regard and use the Bible. But of course, there is no unanimity between believers either. Protestant fundamentalists who believe in the Bible alone are a far cry away from Catholic integralists who interpret the Bible against the horizon of Sacred Tradition. There is also the tension between private interpretation and magisterial teaching authority. The issue is not just that atheists reject “the book,” but they general question any supposed revelation or communication from God as either delusion or as deception. Many refuse to seriously consider the arguments of either theologians or philosophers. If God cannot be shown through their microscopes or telescopes, then no ground is given for his existence.
While the atheist may find it illogical to believe in a “God” proclaimed from a book and not proven from science to his satisfaction, there may be far more anxiety with the prospect that we are alone and unloved in this vast universe. It is here that Pascal’s wager speaks to the agnostic. Pascal argued that if you believe in God and this truth should be realized, then you win everything. Whereas if he does not exist, then you have lost nothing regardless of your stance. While insightful, this approach is unsatisfactory for the believer because faith is about more than hedging your bets.
The atheist narrows truth to the scientific and even that is restricted by their bias. They make no distinction between the belief of one God and the notion of multiple deities. However, Christians, Jews and Moslems insist that there is a God and he is ONE. True, Christians speak of a Trinity, but he is defined as one divine nature in three divine Persons. The multiple deities of ancient pagans and the present-day Hindus are treated as idolatry and superstition. Here we would agree with atheists. There are indeed counterfeit religions and false gods. The early Christians regarded the pagan gods as demons in disguise. The Judaeo-Christian appreciation of one God signified a step forward to true religion and away from magic.
The pagan gods often behaved badly, and some were not even regarded as immortal. They were more like the Marvel comics vision of such gods as super-powerful aliens. Look at how Catholicism defines and speaks about God. He has within himself all perfections and is the Creator of all things. You cannot have two omnipotent beings because such would cancel each other out. God is perfect and that means he must logically be simple or one. All creatures receive their existence from God or participate or share in his existence. Nothing can exist apart from him. He keeps all things in being.
While we do not see God face-to-face, we know him in the created order from his effects. Revealing himself to us in salvation history, the God of reason becomes the God of faith. He wants to establish a relationship with us. Sacred signs or miracles are performed to help our unbelief.
Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “Religion provides guidance for many people. It set laws and rules for ancient societies to abide by. And many religious people feel these laws are necessary to dictate what is right and wrong for humankind. Many atheists feel that morality is innate and modern society’s laws are sufficient to govern mankind.”
The Church had hoped that a healthy universal respect for natural law would bring consensus and cooperation in forming a better and moral society. However, the current clash in values is readily interpreted by believers as ample evidence that apart from God, men and women do not know how to be good. We would likely agree with the more reasonable atheists that there should be an innate sense of right and wrong, at least for most people. But we should not forget that human nature while good is also fallen.
Morality includes not only prohibitive acts but also altruism for the good of others and the poor. Ayn Rand’s thinking is particularly popular among conservative politicians on the right. She would also appeal to atheists. Her philosophy of selfishness shuns expressions of charity. It has been noted by certain atheists themselves that the charity and social justice efforts are disproportionately linked to churches and religious people. Both the civil rights efforts for racial integration and the marches for the lives of the unborn are heavily populated by believers. The faithful and Christian organizations are often the first on the ground to support the poor and disadvantaged. Where would they be if people of faith were to disappear?
Many a believer has prayed that he might be spared from the terrible compassion of non-believers with benign intentions but with a lack of guidance about right or wrong. A mother panics about an unplanned pregnancy and destroys her unborn baby. A family frets about the pain that an elderly grandmother suffers and opts for euthanization to end her misery. The Christian places ultimate trust in God. By contrast, the atheist must place his trust in mankind alone, and in practice this means politicians and the state. While believers speak of inalienable and God-given rights, what the state gives, the state can take away. Right and wrong becomes a capricious exercise of pandering to power. The wealthy and powerful will always win in this scenario. The poor and the weak will be victimized and manipulated. It is in recognizing God that we safeguard human dignity and rights. Nothing else satisfies as well.
Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “From biblical times to modern day, it’s true that many wars have been fought in the name of religion. From the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, to modern religious extremists and terror attacks, many have suffered. However, most religious people don’t support going to war with people who have different beliefs. Those who have been mislead to resort to violence fail to see the peaceful messages that are present in virtually all religious texts. Some atheists feel that the world would be more peaceful without the impact of any religions.”
Were there many wars fought over religion? While Hitler ordered the holocaust of six million Jews, it was not really a war over religion. The first World War had to do with clashing empires, alliances and money. The Japanese wanted sovereignty over Asia and control of the Pacific Ocean. Korea and Vietnam was all about the aggression of Chinese atheistic Communism. The Inquisition employed religion as a tool but besides stamping out heresy was essentially a political effort to secure Europe from Moslem occupation. The Crusades preserved Europe from Islamic invasion. Religion was a factor in the Crusades because it was hoped that the Holy Land might be reopened to pilgrims. Religion is merely one factor among many in such questions about human congress and tension. It is not necessarily the single root-cause for hostilities.
Speaking in terms of Christianity, the pacifism of the earliest believers became increasing impracticable and hard to sustain. Believers were martyred like the killing of flies. The Roman empire opposed the new religion because Christianity was intolerant of paganism and believers refused to compromise. One could not worship idols or the demons they signified and still claim the lordship of Jesus Christ. Old Rome saw the emergence of Christianity as a political threat to the empire— especially the language about turning the cheek, giving to those who take from you, and loving your enemies. Christians joined with Constantine to bring three centuries of persecution to an end. When it came to the relationship between the Church and Islam, the weight of guilt was more heavily upon Islam and its notion of jihad or holy war to force religious submission. Islam was to Europe what the Soviet Union was to us during the Cold War. Our faith and civilization were all at stake. The inquisition expelled an enemy from our midst. The crusades sought to open the holy land to pilgrims. The tensions between Protestants and Catholics in Europe were part of a struggle for political power between princes, kings, and the Church. The conflict was more about temporal matters than spiritual ones.
While there are many apologists who argue that militant Islam is an aberration to a religion of peace, in truth every place that becomes 51% Islam experiences a repression of Christians, Jews and others. We would concur with atheists that God’s children should not kill each other over religion; however, Christian believers have a right to defend themselves. When this becomes impossible, as with the Coptic men who had their throats cut, there is a witness to how we should remain faithful even if we must die.
Those atheists who think that a world without religion would be more peaceful are delusional. Atheism has been tried, and as with Stalin, millions suffered the loss of rights and incarceration in the gulags. He killed 20 million of his own people. The atheists who claim political power, subsequently treat their anti-god philosophy like a religion, seeking converts not through argument but through war and revolution. When God is taken out of the picture, men assume his throne. There can never be a vacuum. While critics lament God’s laws and judgment, the verdict of men is much harsher. Separated from the Divine Mercy, why should we be surprised?
Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “Religious people typically accept their holy text as the word of God, verbatim. This can cause friction with modern concepts of personal freedom and liberties that didn’t exist in biblical times. Some atheists criticize the archaic laws and customs of the Bible, and insist that it’s outdated and shouldn’t be followed by modern people.”
First, the Bible is not a morality manual. That which is taught must be understood in a contextual way and not quoted as isolated proof texts. Second, everything taught in the Old Testament must be appreciated in the context of its times and culture. No one today would seek to impose stoning or beheading for either adultery or idolatry. Third, the message of Jesus in his words and actions constitutes the prism for understanding the entire Bible. Fourth, not every law or custom in the Bible is meant to have lasting significance. We must discern between the transitory and lasting. Fifth, Catholic morality and beliefs emerge from the Bible, Tradition, the teachings of the Church. Sixth, added to the mix of divine positive law are the truths of natural law. It is precisely a reflection upon the mystery of Christ that enlightens the believer about genuine human rights and the freedom that belongs to the dignity of persons. Those who insist that the Bible creates friction with modern concepts of personal freedom are quite right as a non-Christian secular humanism has lost its way. It not only tolerates but gives approbation to homosexual acts, gender dysphoria, fornication and adultery, and the destruction of the unborn. Many critics would strip believers of their religious liberty. Those who would destroy the unborn forfeit the moral high ground to judge anyone. Freedom was never meant to be a license for sin. Freedom can be abused and become a type of bondage. Part of the problem with the criticism is a wrongful definition of “freedom.”
While we may literally declare the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, immutable divine truths are interspersed with the truths of men. This appreciation of the Word goes beyond the text to an appreciation of the divine presence of Christ. Our Lord is present in both the Word and in the sacrament or Eucharist.
Few or none would argue that we as Christians must believe in or follow the Old Jewish juridical law. The atheists who reject the teachings of the Bible would put no faith in the teaching Church that is charged with the transmission and interpretation of sacred truths. The atheist wrongly views the Scriptures as entirely man-made and thus as having no binding force upon secular men and women. Unfortunately, this includes more than customs but the Decalogue which underpins the traditional appreciation of right and wrong. Believers seek to promote virtue and discriminate against vice. And yet, separated from the sources of revelation, modern men find it difficult to distinguish between right and wrong.
What is often omitted is that the so-called “archaic laws and customs” of the Bible became the underpinnings of Western culture for most of its 2,000 years. Something that was old and ever-new is brushed aside for the new morality and of an emerging secular society. All that is old is rejected as obsolete and wrong while untried fads are given an unmerited importance. The commandments about God are utterly discarded. The commandment about objective truth is compromised by the deception of relativism where the subjectivity of politicians and the media are even given sway over reality and nature, itself. The good of marriage and family life is surrendered to fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. “Thou shall not kill” is qualified as not to include euthanizing old sick people or terminating unwanted or defective children, either in the womb or soon after birth. Obedience becomes a dirty word for a people who will not be told what to do, especially by elders and the Lord. Greed, lust, indeed every deadly sin is celebrated instead of rejected. Minds are poisoned, wills are compromised, and confusion reigns. Today many confess uncertainty about their gender. Biblical morality or Christian ethics are readily discarded, but what if anything substantial is offered in its place?
Krystal Smith poses this question at STAPLER CONFESSIONS and states: “Theists suggest that God is omnipresent, and is in all living things, including us. Some claim to be able to feel God’s presence, or even suggest they’ve experienced divine intervention. These experiences are interpreted as signs from God. Atheists insist that there are no signs from God. They ask why God doesn’t just show himself to everyone to prove his existence.”
Beyond human ignorance and malice, the failure to see signs of God is not dissimilar from the Satanic veiling of consciences regarding the many crimes against the dignity of persons and the sanctity of life. If Catholic politicians are willing to celebrate legislation that promotes the termination of children fully formed after nine months in the womb, then why should we think they would recognize the presence of God or the divine in the world. Those of a secular humanist society have closed their hearts and minds to miracles both natural and supernatural.
Christian philosophers would contend that there needs to be some sort of initial demarcation between ourselves and God as “the greatest good” to preserve freedom. This was likely true for angels before the fall, and it is still the case with us. The acquisition of the greatest good in heaven ensures that one will always say YES to God as a saint.
We are promised that we will all stand before the Lord. But such will be a time of final commendation and reckoning. Those who would demand that God reveal himself immediately right now are literally invoking judgment day. It is for this reason that after death one’s orientation becomes permanent. What we know now is through faith and not through sight. This rationale is why God does not fully or immediately reveal himself to his material creation.
The Lord wants us to meet him part way instead of him doing all the work. He comes to us; we must also go to him. That is an element of the incarnation where Jesus is the human face or revelation of God. God relates to us as one of us, literally joining the human family. All this is to assist us in properly relating to God. The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen spoke about Christ becoming a man as the traversing of a greater distance than a man becoming an ant. The Old Testament asserts that none could see God as he is and live. Notice the transformation in the likeness of Moses after commingling with God on the mountain. God is fire and to encounter him threatens being burned.
Theists do more than suggest that God is “omnipresent,” he is necessarily keeping all things in existence. His role as Creator is not locked in a moment of history but is ongoing and necessary. If God were to neglect us even for a moment, we would cease to exist. Fortunately, the divine economy does not permit annihilation. The intervention of God also includes his interaction with us and a gradual revelation that finds fulfillment with the coming of Jesus Christ. The Lord establishes both a corporate or communal and a personal relationship with us. He desires to share awareness, life, and love with us. It is in this that we are made in the image of God. God has given us his Church and there are supernatural signs to reassure believers, such as apparitions and miracles. Believers trust the testimony of past witnesses and the teachings of Christ’s Church. They also open themselves to a sense of the Lord’s presence and form a real relationship with the living Christ. Believers do not believe they are delusional but rather that there is a real spiritual encounter and friendship. However, one must be open to a relationship with the Lord. Many non-believers are ill-disposed for the grace that comes with faith and love in Christ.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 