The INQUISITION & the Church

Many anti-Catholics on the Internet speak of the Inquisition as if it just happened last Tuesday. They stereotype the Catholic Church as an inherently oppressive and perverse institution. These Fundamentalist and/or church-cults, having no history of their own, nevertheless, attack various elements in the long history of Catholicism, assaulting "Christianity" itself. Distorting the truth, they become the very thing they seek to ridicule.

Anti-Catholic Bigots on This Issue are the NEW NAZIS

A wonderful booklet on this issue, and the main source for this page, was published back in 1950, The Truth About the Inquisition by John A. O'Brien and published by The Paulist Press. He writes:

In their efforts to discredit religion and disparage the Church, Nazi propagandists resurrected long buried incidents of the Inquisition and decked them out in lurid and gruesome colors and paraded them before the people. We recall standing before a book store window on Maria-Hilfenstrasse in Vienna in July, 1939, when the Nazi propaganda was in high gear, and seeing the bloodcurdling display of posters and pictures of imaginary scenes from the Inquisition. "See thee," Goebels was saying, "that is what will happen to you if we do not rescue you from the Church." (O'Brien, p. 5)

Well, there it is. The similarity goes much deeper, however. Kindred to these masters in hate, the anti-Catholic bigot makes a scapegoat of the Church, twisting the facts and the truth to their advantage, and even resorting to the BIG LIE. Name the issue, we see it repeated. O'Brien's long out-of-print booklet is a wonderful source for reflection and reference in dealing with this issue.

5 Facts Needed to Understand the Medieval Situation

The Inquisition & the Church

Dr. O'Brien delineates five areas where moderns misunderstand medieval Christendom (pp. 7-8):

• The Church is a society, perfect and sovereign, with legislative, judicial and executive powers, charged with the supreme task of disseminating in all its purity the body of divinely revealed religious truth.
• Faith was considered by the people of the Middle Ages (and of today as well) as a gift of God, more precious than all the treasures of the earth. The faith had come down to them in its original integrity because their ancestors had suffered persecution and death rather than modify it or deny it. It was their duty to safeguard its purity so there would be no departure from the teachings of Christ and His Apostles; since it was the key that would open to them the gates of Heaven, no earthly treasure could compensate them for its loss; hence orthodoxy was to be maintained at all costs.
• There existed a moral, spiritual and juridical unity of medieval society wherein Church and State constituted a closely knit polity. Theocratic in structure, the State could not be indifferent about the spiritual welfare of its subjects without being guilty of treason to its supreme Lord and Sovereign-- Almighty God. The spiritual authority was inseparably intertwined with the secular in much the same way as the soul is united with the body: the modern concept of these two authorities operating in separate water-tight compartments would have shocked the medieval mind much as a schizophrenic personality dismays the modern.
• There was a severity of the penal code of those days, in which the use of torture and the stake was common. Counterfeiters were burnt alive; those who gave false weights and measures were scourged or condemned to death; burglars were led to the scaffold; thieves convicted of a relapse were put to death. The whole penal code bristled with vengeance for those who transgressed its laws; even as late as the reign of Henry VIII and of Elizabeth persons were being drawn, disemboweled and quartered; others were being boiled to death. Still more revolting was the torture of the wheel, on which the victim was left with broken bones and limbs to die a lingering death of excruciating pain. John Calvin experienced no scruples in having his theological opponent, Michael Servetus, burned to death. The penalties inflicted by the Inquisition were simply those in current use in their day.
• The modern concept of the secular state, neutral toward all religions and guaranteeing to their adherents equal rights and freedom of conscience and of worship, would have shocked the medieval mind. Few people realize how comparatively recent is the development such as we have in the United States. To view the thought and action of the people of the Middle Ages against the background of today is to misunderstand and misjudge them entirely. It would be like viewing the covered wagon in which the early settlers in America trekked to the West against the background of the airplane travel of today.

First Three Centuries: Pro-Life Stance, Even Toward Heretics

The Inquisition & the Church

Repudiating the punishment of stoning as dictated for defilers of faith in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 13:6-9 and 17:1-6, the Apostles and their more immediate successors adopted an entirely pro-life stance:

SAINT PAUL - (Utilizing a spirit punishment) "By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:19-20). (Cutting heretics off from the Church) "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11).

LACTANTIUS - (Along with Origen, he repudiated the very notion of the death penalty for heresy) "Religion, being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion and one must defend it at any cost. It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion" (De Divinis Institutionibus, 5:10).

TERTULLIAN - (Derived from natural law, religious affiliation is a matter of free will and not compulsion) "However, it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion-- to which free-will and not force should lead us-- the sacrificial victims even being required of a willing mind" (Ad. Scapulam, chap. 2).

Christianity is Made Legal: The State Intervenes

The Inquisition & the Church

It is here that the problems start. The emperor legitimized Christianity with the Edict of Toleration in 325 AD. Almost immediately, the emperors, viewing themselves as the divinely established guardians of the temporal and material affairs of the Church, they also intruded into spiritual matters. Eventually the Catholic Church and the Christian faith would become the religion of the empire. As such, it would be seen as the GLUE of the empire. Such a mind set quickly led to aggressive measures in stamping out heresy.

• When the emperors entered into league with the Arian bishops, they persecuted orthodox prelates, imprisoning and sending them into exile.
• St. Hilary of Poitiers vainly protested the use of force in his region, contending that the severe Old Testament sanctions were replaced by the gentle laws of Christ (Liber Contra Auxentium, IV).
• Successors to Constantine issued many penal edicts against heretics, 68 in 57 years, which resulted in either exile or death.
• In 407 AD, a law against the Donatists deemed them traitors to the crown.
• St. Augustine of Hippo, repudiated such use of force (against the Manicheans) and sought to win the heretics by preaching and dialogue.
• The emperor Maximus ordered that Priscillian, bishop of Avila, found guilty of heresy and sorcery, be put to death in 385 AD in accordance to the appeal of the Spanish bishops. St. Martin of Tours, St. Ambrose, and St. Leo strenuously reprimanded the Spanish bishops for doing such a reprehensible thing.
• St. John Chrysostom thought that a heretic should be deprived of liberty of speech and that their assemblies should be dissolved, but proclaimed that "to put a heretic to death would be to introduce upon earth an inexpiable crime" (Homilies, 46: 1). Dr. O'Brien writes about this wonderful saint: He declares that God forbids their execution, even as He forbids us to uproot the cockle, but He does not forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of freedom of speech or to prohibit their meetings" (O'Brien, p. 13).
• In 1022 AD, King Robert had thirteen Carthari heretics executed at Orleans "because he feared for the safety of the kingdom and the salvation of souls." After 1022 AD, Mob action increased against heretics. The populace was taking the law into their own hands and putting heretics to death. Such lawlessness could not be tolerated by the civil society or the Church. The mobs had even stormed the prisons.
• Waso, the Bishop of Liege urged against using force upon the Carthari, arguing much as St. John Chrysostom had seven centuries earlier.
• The bishops during this period were virtually unanimous against appealing to the secular arm for the punishment of heretics, and all of them rejected the death penalty.
• Peter Cantor, the most learned man of this age, expressed the prevailing sentiment within the Church leadership: "Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, 'A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid,' he certainly did not say, 'Kill him.' Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death'" (De investigatione Antichrist 3:42).
• St. Bernard put down the law, in direct opposition to the mobs, "Fides suadenda, non imponenda." Men are to be won to the Faith, not by violence, but by persuasion. He censured the princes, arguing that "the obstinate were to be excommunicated and if necessary, kept in confinement for the safety of others" (O'Brien, p. 15).
• The views of Peter Cantor and St. Bernard were ratified by a whole series of synods during that time: Rheims (1049) under Leo IX, Tolouse (1119) under Callistus II, and the Lateran Council of 1139.
• The infrequent execution of heretics during this period must be considered the arbitrary action of secular rulers and the fanatical mob violence. They were not the result of Church law or authority.

Albigensian Heresy: Church & State Forced to Be More Severe

The Inquisition & the Church

It is here that there is a radical shift in the Church's dealing with heretics toward more serious penal measures. It is here that anti-Catholic bigots treat church history in the same piece-meal way they regard the bible. Matters are taken out of context and real threats are made light of or cast in the pallor of the Protestant/Catholic debate. Let us look at things honestly.

Dr. O'Brien succinctly tells us what happened:

In the second half of the twelfth century, however, the Albigensian or Catharan heresy spread through Europe in an alarming fashion; it menaced not only the Church's existence but also the very foundations of Christian society and orderly government. In answer to this grave menace there grew up in Germany, France and Spain a kind of prescriptive law which visited heresy with death at the stake, a form of capital punishment common at that time. Against that action of the Christian state to defend itself the Church did not protest; indeed, she felt called upon to sanction the severe penalties of the secular authority and to co-operate with the state in their enforcement, for her very existence was likewise threatened" (O'Brien, pp. 16-17).

Who were the Albigensians? How did this heresy threaten both the Church and State?

• They called themselves "Catharii," (Pure), found sexual relations repugnant and rejected marriage as abominable.
• They professed to be practicing primitive Christianity itself.*
• They held for a two-fold principle of creation, one good and the other, evil.
• Matter was evil and the spirit was good.
• All existence was in conflict between these two principles.
• Since all matter was evil, they denied the incarnation (that Christ assumed a human body).
• Regarding Christ as the highest angel, they denied both his humanity and divinity.
• They denied that he could endure injury; thus, there was no Crucifixion or Resurrection.
• The entire narration of his Passion and Death was brushed aside as illusion.
• They denied the "real presence" in the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass.*
• Although sinless, the Virgin Mary had a celestial body like Christ, and only appeared to be a woman.
• Dr. O'Brien writes: "They professed hatred and contempt for the Church, branding her the Scarlet Woman of the Apocalypse, 'drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus'; the pope was Antichrist. The sacraments were childish impostures and transubstantiation was a mad blasphemy. Particularly vehement were those heretics in their denunciation of all forms of symbolism and of the veneration of relics and especially of the Cross" (O'Brien, p. 18).*
• Usurpation of Church structure and sacraments: "They had bishops as rulers and their members were divided into the 'perfected,' the 'consoled' and the 'believers.' The believers were obliged to prostrate themselves before the perfected and to venerate them in an obsequious manner. They made one sacrament out of baptism, confirmation, penance and the Eucharist, which they called the consolamentum. Those who died without receiving the consolamentum would pass either to eternal punishment or into the body of an animal; since the latter might be the dwelling-place of a human soul, they refused under all circumstances to take animal life" (O'Brien, p. 18).
• Usurpation of the rights of the state: "The putting to death of a human being, for any crime whatsoever, was considered wrong; and according to the Summa Contra Hereticos, 'all the Catharan sects taught that the public prosecution of crime was unjust and no one had the right to administer justice'" (O'Brien, p. 18).
• As an attack upon society's most basic component, the family, they contended that sex was evil at its core. Procreation was condemned as a Satanic enterprise wherein the pregnant female was possessed by a demon. If she died while pregnant or giving birth, she was eternally damned.
• Marriage was dismissed as a perpetually sinful state, worse than fornication, adultery, incest, and sodomy. The reasoning here was that married couples felt no shame or remorse. Also, there was the possibility of progeny. Abortion was reckoned as something to be highly recommended.
• The last sacrament or consolamentum could only be given those who renounced sexual relations; indeed, afterwards there were severe penalties of fasting for a man who merely touched a woman.
• The Albigensians repudiated the oath of fealty which represented the bonding foundation of feudal society and refused all taxes.
• Critically ill members were given the consolamentum and then urged to make their salvation certain by the endura, no less than suicide. Often it translated into murder. If they agreed, they were asked if they were a martyr or a confessor. Martyrs were suffocated with a pillow while confessors died of thirst and starvation. The so-called Perfect would often hang around to make sure the person was made to die, and it should be mentioned that opportunists sometimes exploited these situations for profit. Toward the middle of the thirteenth century, they cruelly subjected small children to the endura.

*PLEASE NOTE that the three points highlighted in this list are teachings shared with many, if not most anti-Catholic fundamentalists.

A. L. Maycock, in his work The Inquisition, states that the ENDURA was responsible for more deaths in Languedoc than the stake or the Inquisition! (p. 42). E. Vacandard in his work by the same title, reports, "Everyone who reads the acts of the tribunals of the Inquisition of Toulouse and Carcassone must admit that the endura, voluntary or forced, put to death more victims than the stake or the Inquisition" (p. 72). Even many non-Catholic historians admit, that orthodoxy in faith and civilization itself was at peril. The Albigensians were revolting, not only against the Church and the state, but against man' mastery over nature.

The INQUISITION is Born

The Inquisition & the Church

Dr. O'Brien tells us the following:

During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as an institution, was not yet in existence. Up to 1224 there was no imperial law ordering, or pre-supposing as legal, the burning of heretics. The rescript for Lombardy of 1224 is the first law in which death by fire is expressly stipulated as the unqualified punishment.

There is no evidence that Pope Honorius III had any hand in drafting that ordinance; the burning of heretics in Germany was no longer rare and the ancient Roman Law that punished high treason with death, and Manicheism in particular with the stake, was not unknown to the emperor, Frederick II. The imperial rescripts of 1220 and 1224 were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231 and were soon applied at Rome. It was then the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being. It was probable, as Lea conjectures, that Gregory had no intention of establishing a permanent tribunal but was simply taking measures to meet an emergency" (O'Brien, p. 24).

The institution of the Inquisition headed off the growing encroachment of Frederick II into Church affairs. It would also give the Church some hand in controlling situations where there was a history of abuse and incompetence. Special and permanent judges were appointed to deal in the Pope's name with offenses against faith. Established rules of canonical conduct with set penalties were to be followed. The rule of law was to be imposed upon the madness of the mob. The task of this Inquisition was not simply to hold secret interrogations and then to make charges; nor were they fanatics to implement torture, something which would not be allowed for many decades; nor were they to render wholesale sanctions, imprisonment, the confiscation of assets, or to impose the stake-- they were simply papal judges who were commissioned to seek out heretics and to reconcile them, if possible; or to pronounce the usual spiritual penalties if stubborn, and deliver them over to the secular power.

Gregory IX turned to the Franciscans and the Dominicans to supply theologically competent and holy men for this role. They worked closely with the bishops and had to submit their findings to them for approbation. Many times the popes warned them against being overzealous and severe. Innocent IV in 1254 renewed the prohibition against perpetual incarceration or death at the stake without consent of the bishops. Boniface VIII and Clement V declared all judgments without episcopal approval to be null and void.

The inquisitor would preach a solemn sermon of faith. Assisted by the local faithful of varying status, those suspected of heresy would be summoned. The would be required to promise total obedience to the commands of the Church; otherwise, they would stand prosecution under the given statutes. Dr. O'Brien lists these features of the inquisitorial procedure (pp. 27-28):

. . . the time of grace, the denunciation of suspects, the trial, the imposing of sentence upon repentant heretics and the abandonment of the recalcitrant ones to the secular arm. During the time of grace all who freely confessed and abandoned their errors were either dispensed from all penalties or were given only a secret and very light penance; those whose heresy had been openly manifested were exempted from the penalties of perpetual imprisonment and death. This time should not, however, exceed one month; after that began the Inquisition. When the heresy was considered to be stamped out, the inquisitors moved on to another locality.

The use of an advisory board of laymen and priests were often used to insure a fair and impartial verdict. A council of other standing judges assisted, too. Unfortunately, and it must be admitted, many of the safeguards for the protection of the rights of the accused, which we cherish today, had not yet evolved.

What About Torture?

The Inquisition & the Church

Yes, it is true. While the accused was not imprisoned during the inquiry period, if he refused to confess his guilt and his accomplices, sometimes the authorities resorted to torture. It was not classified as a form of punishment, merely a means of eliciting the truth. "It was not of ecclesiastical origin and was long forbidden in the ecclesiastical courts" (p. 29). It was first sanctioned by Innocent IV in his Bull Ad exstirpanda of May 15, 1252. The torture was not, however, to cause the loss of a limb or to imperil life. It could be applied only once, and not even then unless the accused seemed dubious in his statements and the weight of evidence leaning heavy toward conviction. All other means had to be exhausted first. Dr. O'Brien writes:

If this papal legislation had been followed in practice, many of the abuses which have justly aroused such resentment against the Inquisition would have been avoided. In the beginning, torture was considered so odious and so contrary to the spirit of the Gospels that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity.

Using many different instruments of torture, the rule about resorting to it only once was circumvented. While the severity of torture has often been exaggerated, it must be admitted that there were cases of terrible excess. Such was often the case when civil authorities leaned on Church officials for results. Using his seal for the faith as an excuse, Frederick II abused the Inquisition and the rack to eradicate his personal enemies. "St. Joan of Arc was sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant largely because her judges were tools of English policy. Moreover, the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, . . .were chiefly traceable to the influence of the secular arm" (O'Brien, p. 31).

Most Inquisition penalties were mild and intended to assist the person to grow spiritually. Good works were required, like church visitation, a religious pilgrimage, the offering of a candle or Mass vessel, the participation in a crusade, fines, mortification of the flesh, etc. The worst punishments were incarceration or excommunication from the Church. If the Church felt that she could not appropriately punish the misdeeds, she would hand them over to the secular authorities. Imprisonment could be severe, but the vast majority lived a rather monastic life with a communal form of life-- taking meals with others, living with their spouses, and enjoying freedom of movement within the set buildings and grounds. Catholic friends were even allowed to visit them and to bring them food, wine, and clothing from outside. As for the more severe imprisonment, it often took the form of solitary confinement and chains. The popes were eventually able to do much to improve the conditions for this latter group. The chains were removed, friends and outside food was permitted, etc. The Papacy, so often blamed for the Inquisition, showed itself as a influence to make the situation more humane.

We Owe a Debt to the Inquisition

The Inquisition & the Church

Very few people, when we look at the numbers, suffered the extreme penalty of death. This changes the complection of the Inquisition from that surmised by popular culture and hailed by anti-Catholics. Dr. O'Brien astutely observes:

Hence it is evident that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the administration of justice and therefore in the general civilization of mankind; it substituted court procedure for mob action and lynch law. Far from being a failure, the Inquisition succeeded in its gigantic task of stemming the Albigensian heresy which like a black plague was devastating Christendom. In spite of its shortcomings not only Christianity but also human civilization owe no small debt to the work of the Inquisition (p. 34).

Things Get Out of Hand: The Spanish Inquisition

The Inquisition & the Church

Here the legacy of the Inquisition becomes a real mess. After a 780 year conflict with the Moors, Ferdinand and Isabella defeated the Saracens and in 1501 ordered them either to convert or to leave. Their Catholic faith and nationalism were focused into one reality. When many of the Moors apostatized or tainted Christianity with Moslem practices, the situation was ripe for the Inquisition. The Spanish people saw this as a means to cement their national identity. This also set the stage for terrible abuse. The Inquisition was established in 1480, but along royalist lines and not according to the Medieval form. Pope Sixtus IV became so concerned that he arrested the Spanish ambassador. Ferdinand retaliated in kind. Rome relented.

The Inquisition in Spain ignored Rome's protests, and did not hesitate to initiate proceedings against bishops and archbishops. Intimate with the crown, it even declared decisions of the Roman Congregation of the Index only to be valid if countersigned by Madrid's Holy Office. It even attacked Carranza, Archbishop of Toledo, placing his book on the Catechism of Trent, on the Spanish Index-- even though it had Rome's approval! It was only after Carranza had suffered eight years of imprisonment and a threat to excommunicate the monarch that he was released and sent to Rome. The Spanish Inquisition twice imprisoned St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. St. Theresa of Avila was denounced and one of her works, Concepts pf Divine Love, was placed on the Index. Fortunately, she was rescued by the personal influence of Philip II. Unfortunately, the state often unjustly manipulated and interfered with the Spanish Inquisition. Some would thus contend that it was a political and not an ecclesiastical institution. Others would insist that the Church was too involved here to be entirely absolved. Dr. O'Brien writes: "The Church must, therefore, bear her share of responsibility for the proceedings of this tribunal, so many of whose actions were marked by cruelty and savagery. They have left black stains on the pages of history and their somber shadow falls upon both crown and papacy and shows their occupants were the children of their day" (O'Brien, p. 41).

The Holy Father has the gift of infallibility regarding faith and morals (given certain parameters); however, he has no guarantee of perfection in the mechanics of running a government or insuring the absolute justice of earthly courts. Further, he is not impeccable; a point most important when we recall the abuses which result from sin and the poor decisions which are derived from human weakness. Further, his is a moral authority. As history shows, often this was not enough to move others to listen to him in acting with mercy and compassion. We can only hope that there has been a real development in our consciousness of religious liberty, the freedom of one's conscience, and the Gospel of Life.

Protestants Have Killed Many More Catholics!

The Inquisition & the Church

Calvin sought to persecute heretics (particularly Roman Catholics) so as to keep Protestant believers in the lands divided by the Reformation faithful to his new teachings. He viciously persecuted the Spaniard, Michael Servetus, having him burnt alive on October 27, 1553. As early as 1545, Calvin had written, "If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive." He kept his promise.

Melancthon, one of the more mild reformers and the editor for Luther's many works and teachings, would write to Bullinger, "I am astonished that some persons denounce the severity that was so justly used in that case."

Theodore of Beza wrote: "What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin's Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men." He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience "worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases."

Martin Luther also fanned the flames of intolerance, "Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell."

King Henry VIII of England, who took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor, took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured.

Queen Elizabeth, proved herself the former's daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years!

Yes, there is more than enough blame to go around. Maybe it is time for respect and dialogue and if need be, the charitable anathema, instead of mockery and half-truths?

Against the Anti-Catholic Interpretation of Revelation

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Fr. Joe

Who Killed Goliath?

A fellow named James sent me an email challenging the use of Scripture; later, he clarified that it was not the bible he rejected, just the Catholic version.

He asked a question that he considered a stumper. I commended him for his bible studies, but the question he asked was hardly original with him. It was a set up. A number of critics who hope to ridicule the Catholic bible and confuse poorly educated Catholics are quick to ask, "Who Killed Goliath?"

While remarking that Protestant fundamental literalism and Catholic biblical scholarship represents entirely different hermeneutics, I tried to make an answer.

Most Protestant and Catholic translations of the bible today, as well as all the foreign language texts about which I am aware (original translations) would make his question mute as the same problem with 2 Samuel 22:19 is true of all of them, ". . . and Elhanan the son of Jaareorgim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite . . ." (RSV). This version was corrected from the earlier rendition from the KJV that edited the translated text in light of 1 Samuel 17 and 1 Chronicles 20:5. It read, " . . . where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath, the Gittite . . . ." 1 Chronicles 20:5 attributes the killing of Lahmi, Goliath's brother, to Elhanan. While 2 Samuel renders Elhanan's father as Jaareorigim, 1 Chronicles gives a different name, Jair. A copying or dittographical error has been made in the ancient text where the word "oregim" has been duplicated and inserted after the name. (The word, "oregim," refers to the shaft of a spear compared to a WEAVER's beam). Since the naming of Elhanan's father is corrupted, some scholars, Catholic and Protestant, have argued that 1 Chronicles is the superior text where the Lord slays Goliath through his servant, David. Other scholars make still more arguments about the texts. Some say that David originally killed an anonymous Phillistine who is later confused with Elhanan's victim. The Jewish authorities using the Targums and Midrash contend that Elhanan and David was the same person. Thus, David becomes a second name, acquired later. Weight is given this view since the word, "dawidum" was used at Mari and they conclude that David was a title received at his coronation. Arguing a corruption in the consonants, they further claim the name Jair was originally Jesse. However, this seems dubious at best.

While the biblical traditions are not entirely clear, unless we force harmony into the texts as was done for Protestant England in 1611; Catholic authority and tradition has merely favored David as the human slayer of Goliath. Indeed, it was largely this residual Catholicism that led the English Protestant translators to offer what they saw as a correction to 2 Samuel. However, true Catholic translators opted not to take it upon themselves to change the sacred text but to footnote and instruct about what they saw as a corruption of it.

Thus, the Catholic answer to the question is found in these two texts:

1 Chronicles 20:5 - "Once again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath of Gath, whose spear shaft was like a weaver's heddle-bar."

1 Samuel 17:49-51 - "David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone embedded itself in his brow, and he fell prostrate on the ground. [Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone; he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword.] Then David ran and stood over him; with the Philistine's own sword [which he drew from its sheath] he dispatched him and cut off his head."

I finished by saying, "There you have it. I suspect already that it will not satisfy you, but I thought I would make the effort anyway. I will pray that the good Lord will soften your heart to greater charity and open your mind for deeper insight, particularly into his holy mysteries. I trust that you will pray the same for me."

There was no response.

Pope John Paul II Kisses the Koran

Pope JP II Kisses a Koran

Many have wondered, why did the Pope kiss the Koran?

Is it not a book that speaks directly against the Catholic faith? Does it not reduce the Son of God to a mere prophet? Did not the popes of the past demand its burning? The answer to all these questions is YES, and yet what the Holy Father did was more complicated than what the anti-Catholic and/or sedevacantist spin-doctors might say about it.

One critic argues that it was a blasphemous act, showing his "hatred" of God and his apostate defection from the true faith. It was none of these things. The Pope is on the record about the differences between Catholics and the followers of Islam. Let us look at the situation. The Pope has longed to go to Iraq in order to walk in the footsteps of Abraham, claimed as a father in faith by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Pope John Paul II has seen first hand the debth of man's inhumanity to his brothers and sisters. Our history as a world is written in blood. As illustrated in his many Mea Culpas, he strives for a new understanding between peoples where dialogue, tolerance, and cooperation will replace anathemas, persecution, and rivalry. Abraham is an integral figure of unity in turning things around politically. Looking at the incident in question, the Holy Father received a delegation that included the Shiite Imam of Khadum Mosque, the Sunni President of the council that operates the Iraqi Islamic Bank, and a member of the Iraqi Ministry of Religion. The invitation of a papal visit was renewed. They even went so far as to say that it would be "a grace from heaven". While Iraq has been guilty of real violations of human rights, this Islamic state has been the most tolerant of Christians than any of its islamic neighbors. Many Catholics hold positions in government, commerce, education, etc. The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (Iraq), His Beatitude Raphael I Bidawid, who was a major spokesman for the delegation. He applauded the Pope's actions and words as a true sign of concern from the Successor of St. Peter. (Christians represent 5% of the 20 million people in Iraq. Catholics of the large Chaldean rite [implementing the Aramaic language] and of the smaller Latin rite represent 80% of all Christians there.) It was said that a papal visit would confirm the faith of Christian believers while showing forth a genuine love for all in this mostly Muslim nation.

The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. Such a gesture ran totally against the grain of crusades and condemnations. It did not mean that the Pope accepted all that was in the book, only that his love for the Muslim people, and the Iraqis in particular, was genuine. He makes the first move, not in the capitulation of our faith, but in the recognition that the followers of Jesus and those who cherish Mohammed should not be engaged in name-calling, or worse, killing each other. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.

Scripture & Tradition

The fact is that Scripture, separated from the living tradition and Magisterium of the Church, loses its grounding and can be easily distorted. The assertion that the authenticity of the Scriptures rests entirely upon itself is an argument that runs counter to the facts and the history of God's people. The Church collected and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the source for the New Testament. Before one word of the Gospel was written, there was the ministering and teaching Catholic Church. The notion that Old Testament prophesies legitimate the Bible fail to recognize that the promise was given to the Jewish people, the first people called by God to be in covenant with him. There are no Scriptures separated from a community established by God. The Catholic Church recognizes that Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah do indeed point to Jesus. This is not a matter of debate. Some anti-Catholic bigots think otherwise.

Sola Scriptura?

Catholics poorly educated in their faith and non-Catholics filled with prejudices, often prejudge the Catholic faith or difficult issues of our discipleship. Such biases, reinforced by others with grievances, are often hard to overcome-- no matter how clearly they are shown to be wrong. The matter of "sola scriptura" is a case in point. Can a believer in Christ interpret the bible without any help from anyone else and without any Magisterium of the Church? While the fundamentalist might distort Scripture by citing isolated verses against Catholic positions; any Scriptures shown to challenge them are dismissed as irrelevant or misinterpreted, no matter how the full context of the teaching is intelligently explained. They are blind to the fact that they have made themselves or their favorite minister into their own private magisterium-- the final authority. They ridicule others holding the same view of "sola scriptura" who interpret the Scriptures differently than they do. Despite the thousands of fragments into which Protestantism has fallen, they insist that there is no NEED for a genuine teaching authority safeguarded by the Holy Spirit in the Church. They violate salvation history by denying that the Church came into being prior to the completion of the Scriptural canon and the composition of the New Testament. Facts do not matter to them unless they are "their" facts. The living tradition and the authority of the Church have always had a part to play in regard to the formation and the truths of Scripture. Just as they reject a teaching authority and are blind to their own claims to infallible interpretation, so too are they hesitant to admit their own church traditions, even if they are only a generation or so old. The "sola scriptura" Christians view the bible as emerging from some vacuum in time to be picked up later by men who themselves would form churches. This contradicts the fact that Jesus himself said that he was going to found a Church and that he was going to give his apostles, with Peter at the head, as its shepherds. Their contradictions to this do not wash. No Catholic Church, no Christian Bible! It is as simple as that, and yet, they still refuse to believe.

False is their view that all personal interpretation of the bible is forbidden to Catholics. Catholic Christians will often search the bible for personal edification and for the voice of God in their lives. What the Church holds is that an individual's interpretation must not contradict a text that has a universally accepted interpretation in the Church, such as regarding the identity or nature of Christ and the means of our salvation, etc. Accompanied by good footnotes and commentaries, the Catholic reader can make great personal use of the Scriptures.

When trounced by a Catholic who really knows the bible, the anti-Catholic bigot will resort to name-calling. One website, upon this very topic, called God's Church "the Roman whore" and a "prostitute." Since St. Paul tells us that husbands should love their wives as Christ has loved the Church, I suppose the derogatory language ultimately targets Christ, no matter whether they know this or not. How would any husband feel to have his wife degraded in this manner? Do they not fear judgment? Failing at any coherent dialogue, the anti-Catholic will tell so-called honest men and women to run for their lives. In other words, even conversation with knowledgeable Catholics is compromise. Instead, they want the gullible and the intellectually ill-equipped who can be easily maneuvered into their camp. The author of the website in question advises Protestants to avoid the Catholic Church and her emissaries as one would the "bubonic plague" and that otherwise, "AIDs and death" might await them.

After urging avoidance, they have the audacity to say that the Catholic Church refuses to allow people to use the brains God gave them. The next big lie is that the Church forbad Catholics to read the bible. The truth is, that long before these anti-Catholic bible Christians or their founders came into existence, the Church had to contend with heresy and the Protestant reformation. Some of these flawed bible texts, even the fundamentalists today would reject. The Church did not ban the bible; rather, she wanted to insure that Catholics read bibles that were accurate and complete. This is the truth upon the matter. Popes have urged believers to approach the Scriptures with real humility and to invoke the Spirit of truth. The Scriptures confirm the claims of the Catholic Church and that of our fathers in faith. This point is also quickly verifiable; however, anti-Catholic critics will have none of it. Indeed they argue the opposite is true. Again, the argument will move from the issues to an attack on the institution and those who speak for her. Thus, someone of my likes would be dubbed "poisoned by his pride" and the Church denounced as a "monstrous entity" which "enslaves the souls of men" in preparation for hell. As you can see, they do not exactly like us. They reduce the Gospel to a propaganda program of hatred and misinformation.

ISOLATED VERSES MISUSED AGAINST THE CHURCH:

I write this to you about those who would deceive you; but the anointing which you received from him abides in you and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him (1 John 2:26-27).

While the anti-Catholic fundamentalist uses this text against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, it is actually a rebuke against himself. 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 other 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 kin 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 fundamentalist uncomfortable: "If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him." A real sign of our being "born again" is our just behavior; dare I say, our good works?

So each of us shall give account of himself to God (Romans 14:12).

The anti-Catholic critic would do well to read a few verses earlier, "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother?" (Romans 14:10). Dissimilar from most other institutions, the inherent unity of Church members in Christ means that an attack against the whole is an assault on each one, and visa versa. 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.

Again, I am a bit taken aback by such a citation which immediately 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. They have repented and have 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 rejected 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.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come (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 heart and mind 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 that which you received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:9).

Fundamentalist critics love this verse; however, given no restraining context, it might just as well apply to them. 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.
Now I would remind you brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day 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 non-Catholics.

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, . . ." ( Acts 16:31).

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 will be saved, YOU AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD.' AND THEY SPOKE THE WORD OF THE LORD TO HIM AND TO ALL THAT WERE IN HIS HOUSE. AND HE TOOK THEM THE SAME HOUR OF THE NIGHT, AND WASHED THEIR WOUNDS, AND HE WAS BAPTIZED AT ONCE, WITH ALL HIS FAMILY. THEN HE BROUGHT THEM UP INTO HIS HOUSE, AND SET FOOD BEFORE THEM; AND HE REJOICED WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD THAT HE HAD BELIEVED IN GOD" (Acts 16:31-34). Can we presume that even the babies of the household were baptized? Probably 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 of faith.

He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life (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, that whoever believes in him should not perish but 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 verse 21: "But he who DOES WHAT IS TRUE comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his DEEDS have been wrought in God."

You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13).

Yes, we believe as Catholics that God will show his face to those who search for him with humility and with sincere hearts. 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."

REFERENCES TO PAGAN ROME USED AGAINST THE CHURCH:

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?

[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).

Scripture texts taken from Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, 1965 & 1966.

Can Catholics Kill Protestants? & Other Fables

There are some charges beyond ridiculous. One of these is that the Canon Law of the Catholic Church advocates the killing of Protestants. Again, the anti-Catholic loves sensationalism and scare tactics. The Church is not only blamed for the Dark Ages and the Inquisition but probably for everything from bad breath to smelly feet. Instead of pictured as a loving mother, the anti-Catholic calls the Church of Rome a "monster." He cannot tolerate her authority or the possibility that there is a claim to truth beyond his control. Such a belligerant stance often puts the anti-Catholic bigot in the embarassing position of castigating even those policies and persons with whom he would have an affinity, if he truly loves the Lord. Thus, he takes public positions against pro-life endeavors which he favors, all because they originate with the Catholic Church. He also suggests that the likes of Mother Teresa is burning in hell because she did not espouse fundamentalist propositions; indeed, she closely associated the Eucharist with her charity endeavors. He becomes the very thing he says he hates about the Catholic Church, intolerant and dishonest.

EXCOMMUNICATION - Turning his attention to this subject, the anti-Catholic denies the Church any authority to discipline her membership. However, he ignores the fact that many Protestant communities shun and expell those who do not follow the party line. In ancient days banishment was preferred to taking the life of an unbeliever. Communion in the Catholic Church implies a uniformity in worship and belief. If such a unity is imperiled by heresy and/or irregular worship, the Church has the obligation to protect the integrity of the faith. One critic compared this policy to the work of Hitler or the Red Scare. However, there is no comparison. The substance of what is being protected is the truth, not a big lie as in totalitarianism. Further, one may still dissent, but one may not do so on a serious matter and pretend to still be a Catholic Christian. The two matters which bring automatic excommunication are harming the person of the Pope and deliberately procuring an abortion. Would the anti-Catholic argue contrary for violence or for excusing the murder of babies? I hope not.

PROSCRIPTION FROM OFFICES - This only pertains to ecclesiastical offices these days as most governments in the West are secular. Should a person continue as a pastor of souls if he is leading them into error or causing scandal by his conduct? I think not. In ancient days, this concern was tied up with the tension with kings over authority and interference in Church matters. While this point is now more historical than current, the Pope has insisted that Catholic priests and male and female religious not hold political positions in civil governments. Would the anti-Catholic who feels this infringes upon private rights really want a Catholic clergyman as his Senator or President? I doubt it. He makes a lot of noise for nothing!

CONFISCATION OF GOODS - This notion is quite archaic and no longer applies except in cases where goods belonging to the Church have been illicitly procured. Would the anti-Catholic want a disgruntled pastor to sell his church from under him or leave it to children with no interest in religion? No. It was the same issue with the Catholic faith. The temporal goods of the Church belong to the People of God. I would readily compare the few hundred dollars a month most of our priests get to the high salaries of many evangelical and fundamentalist ministers any day! Who is it who is really getting rich on religion? On top of this most priests have to maintain their own car, pay insurance, and pay the same taxes as all the rest of us. Religious clergy even take a vow of poverty. Mother Teresa's sisters only possessed two habits each and a bucket to wash them in. Millions upon millions go to charity and the Vatican often suffers a short-fall in funds. Where is this rich Vatican government that anti-Catholics shout about? Should the Church sell off her holdings of art to private collectors and deprive the world of what she safeguards for all humanity? The argument of the anti-Catholic bigot on this score is a tumbling house of cards.

EXECUTION - The anti-Catholics play this theme for all they can get out of it. Again, nations, Protestant, Catholic, Moslem, and Secular have often used religion to their own ends. The complicity of certain ones in the membership (or in leadership) is not grounds for damning the entire Church fellowship. In ancient times, the people themselves would often drag out and lynch heretics. The Church encouraged the rule of law to bring order and justice to the situation. Oftentimes confiscation of property and banishment was the punishment. However, over time the death penalty did encroach upon the scene. Further, until recent times, the Papacy actually retained a substantial territory, the Papal States. Consumed by the Italian unification movement, all that remains is the small Vatican City. The civil legislation of the old Papal States must be reckoned on the same level as other nations. Countries in the past and in the present have sometimes allowed the death penalty for threats to society. Records indicate that such executions in papal lands dealt with capital crimes like murder. Today, the Church has discerned a development in doctrine that would rescind this right of the state to take life since it adds to the current culture of death. Incarceration and rehabilitation are preferred avenues for criminals. However, this is again in reference to what we would all discern to be crimes against society. The irony here is that while many funadamentalists side with Catholics against abortion, they are frequently strong advocates of capital punishment in our own nation. This brings us back to the ludicrous assertion that Catholics are given liberty to kill Protestants. It just is not so. Alongside fundamentalists who want free access to the peoples inside the old Soviet Union, the Catholic Church has joined her voice in defending the right of conscience and religious liberty as a constitutive right of the human person.

Development along these lines does not impinge upon the charism of infallibility regarding faith and morals given the Church. While the Church is holy because of the abiding presence of Christ, her members are always sinners in need of their redeemer, Christ. Regarding matters of science and practical matters of government, the Church has had to feel her way through time just like other organizations. The Church may be infallible, but she is not always impeccable. Anti-Catholics often fail to make this distinction.

One anti-Catholic had to go all the way to Gratian's Decretals of the 12th century (one of the earliest attempts to codify the laws of Christendom) in order to discredit the Catholic Church. His own denomination did not yet exist, indeed, the Protestant Reformation had not yet happened. Nevertheless, he belittles the Church for oppressing his compatriots during that time.
Utterly desperate to show that Catholics can kill Protestants with impunity, one anti-Catholic bigot cites the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. The king's sister, Margaret of Valois, married an important Protestant leader, Henry of Navarre. Her mother and her family secretly arranged for his assassination. When it failed, they convinced the king that there would be a Huguenot reprisal. They decided to strike first but the government could not retain the violence. Religious war broke out and upon his conversion to Catholicism, Henry of Navarre became king, himself. Unfortunately, another reliious war would follow. The anti-Catholic bigot gives few of the facts and condemns the whole Catholic Church for what was a French civil war.

The bigoted anti-Catholic's views which I have largely reviewed here end with a terrible bluntness. He says that unless one leaves the Catholic Church, one must be damned to hell. He tells the Catholic to run, but only gives him a religion which judges itself by its hate of Catholicism. That is no choice. The Catholic should stay home and explore his own spiritual roots. Our history may have some blemishes, but it also contains many jewels. It is the Church of the saints and the family of God established by Jesus.

Did the Catholic Church Prohibit Bible Reading?

An anti-Catholic critic claimed knowing middle-aged ex-Catholics who were not encouraged to read God's Word. I asked a priest in his mid-60's and he said he never heard such a thing; indeed, a special indulgence was granted to anyone who faithfully read the bible on a daily basis. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." My late aunt admitted that she was hesitant to read the bible for fear of misinterpreting the texts; however, such a personal sentiment cannot be said to reflect a Catholic prohibition. Anti-Catholic apologists themselves use isolated bits-and-pieces to refute Catholic teachings and then accuse the Church of using the same flawed methods. Such just is not the case. An anti-Catholic author, David Cloud, furthered such distortions in an article entitled, "The KJV and the Latin Vulgate." He writes:

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Let us look at his assertions. First, did the council of Trent really prohibit the reading and ownership of the bible? The answer is, no. The council fathers decreed on April 8, 1546, ". . . the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, --seeing that one God is the author of both, . . . ." Oddly, I could not find the quotation as given by the above author; however, I did find decrees regarding UNAPPROVED and or FAULTY translations of the Scrtiptures. Just as with theological works, the Church asserted her role over their legitimate use. To suggest that the council of Trent opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue. Second, the prohibition for Catholics in joining Bible Societies was due to the fact that these said groups did not use Scriptures approved by Church sources and were quite anti-Catholic in their approach. Such has been the continued problem with gullible Catholics stolen from Christ's Church by anti-Catholic fundamentalist bible study programs, some which particularly target Catholics. Again, this was no disdain for the holy Scriptures, only for the malicious intent by which some men use them. Third, the concern about bible distribution was that Protestant bibles were being circulated which in missing texts and in footnotes often questioned and ridiculed Catholic teaching. Obviously, the Church preferred that Catholics read bibles which reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic. Cloud's interpretation of Church history, or tradition, is as cloudy as the anti-Catholic's understanding of the Scriptures.

Having attacked Christ's Church, the anti-Catholic bigot who quoted Cloud on his website has the audacity to call the Catholic his "friend." This hackneyed sign of affection was used several years ago by the pornography and prostitute addicted Jimmy Swaggert in a pamphlet to proslytize Catholics. The anti-Catholic critic, when he runs out of material, will often harp about the so-called multitude killed by Catholics and declared heretics. It is true that civil societies in the past did engage in much nonsense, both Catholic and Protestant, however, both camps equated spiritual murder with physical murder and subsequently confused the penalties. Neither Protestants nor Catholics would want to be classified by the actions of extremists. Returning to the subject of the bible, it is my supposition that if properly studied with care to the sources and the literary forms of the text, it will affirm the Catholic faith. Such an openness to the truth of the Scriptures have led many of the more astute Protestants into the Catholic Church. However, the more emotional, embittered, and ignorant the researcher-- the less affected they are by such truths or the claims of the Catholic Church.

The message of our loving God to such critics would be to put aside their prejudice and hatred and taste and see the goodness of the Lord in the Catholic community.

Response to an Anti-Catholic on John 6 & More

One anti-Catholic apologist declared as blasphemy the claim that Catholics "eat" Jesus. In the same breath, he contended that popes forbid 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. Exagerations 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 authorities intent upon using religion as an excuse for intolerance and brutality. So-called incidents of murder and torture by "unholy Romish priests" is 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 reformational 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 in 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 the following:

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.

Anti-Catholic Assertion
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."

Catholic Clarification
In otherwords, until verse 63, Jesus is lying? Sorry, I do not think so. Our Saviour 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 the 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 every time they receive 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.

Dealing with Anti-Catholicism

There is no Scripture which invalidates the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the posts atvthis Blog were in response to an anti-Catholic bigot, and thus the tone may be more harsh and apologetic than usual in interfaith discussions.

The infallibility of the Catholic faith as realized in the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Magisterium (Pope and bishops in union with him) and over revelation, as revealed in Scripture and the life of the Church (tradition) has been proven time and time again. The subject of this safeguard is faith and morals. It does not include all the various secular and scientific truths, upon which the Church's leaders and membership might make human judgments.

Many will offer a donation, called a stipend for a Mass. However, it is a gift and even without monetary help, the sacraments are free-- even if we have to find resources elsewhere to pay for the upkeep of our facilities and materials. Protestant churches also "pass the basket" so this material side cannot be used to harass the Catholic Church. Yes, we pray for the dead, not to hear ourselves talk, but to manifest our continued unity with our beloved deceased who may still be on their way to paradise. It is true that the price for their entry into heaven has been paid by the blood of Christ. However, we must be made perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Those in heaven do not need our prayers and those in hell cannot benefit from them. At least upon this much, the anti-Catholic fundamentalist and the Catholic might agree.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world. Catholics have taken seriously their commitment to love God and neighbor. Catholic schools and hospitals abound throughout the nation. Catholic Charities is one of the largest charity and social assistance on the globe and second only to the U.S. Government. We follow Jesus who is the Way and the Truth and the Life. He gave us the Church as his special family and the breaking of his kingdom into the world. It is unfortunate that despite the Church's incredible contributions to society that there should still be a few who hate and malign her.

Confession to a Priest & Petitioning Saints

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confession (of sins) to a priest. Petitioning Mary and the saints.

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Sins and needs are to be confessed only to God.

BIBLICAL CITATIONS OF THE ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Confession to God] "If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins, and cleanse us from every wrongdoing" (1 John 1:9). [The Our Father] "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). [One Mediator, not the saints, the Pope, or the priests] "For there is one God. There is one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:5). "But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one" (1 John 2:1).

RESPONSE OF A CATHOLIC - The use of 1 Timothy is quite interesting because he affirms the value of good works in fidelity and love to Christ: "But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever calims to abide in him ought to live [just] as he lived" (1 Timothy 2:5-6). I would suspect that the anti-Catholic bigot would not like this message very much. None of his citations contradict Catholic faith. Sins can be forgiven, even outside of the sacrament of Confession. However, one must still admit sinfulness, be sorry, and offer an act of contrition. The sacrament is a special and certain way we receive God's mercy. The Church reserves to herself the confession of certain serious sins so that we may assuredly be forgiven, receive the graces to amend our life, repair rift caused by sin in the Mystical Body, and receive appropriate counsel. Because of his configuration to Christ, the absolution of the priest in Confession resonates in perfect harmony with the expiation of the Cross. Christ forgives our sins. He has extended something of this authority to his Church as an element of his abiding and healing presence. The anti-Catholic critic has trouble with Confession for the same reason that he cannot abide the ministry of priests, the authority of the Pope, and the intercession of the saints: his is an intensely privatized faith which makes no concession to a church other than periodic fellowship. Churches, as long as they are not Romanized, are interchangeable and maybe even considered unnecessary. Such is a theology incapatable with the Scriptural view of the Church as the new People of God or the new Israel or Jerusalem.

BIBLICAL CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [All the previous ones are okay as long as they are correctly understood] [Precident in the Old Testament] "The Lord said to Moses: 'Tell the Israelites: If a man (or woman) commits a fault against his fellow man and wrongs him, thus breaking faith with the Lord, he shall confess the wrong he has done, restore his ill-gotten goods in full, ...'" (Numbers 5:5-7). "He who conceals his sins prospers not, but he who confesses and forsakes them obtains mercy" (Proverbs 28:13). [David confessed his sins to Nathan the prophet and was given assurance of pardon] "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan answered David: 'The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die" (2 Samuel 12:13). [Responding to John the Baptizer] "Then there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region about the Jordan; and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matthew 3:5-6). [Responding to the Apostles] "Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices" (Acts 19:18). [Ordained ministers exert Christ's forgiveness over sins] "So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you.' When he said this, be breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23). "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). "And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18-19). [I will address the matter of Mary and the saints elsewhere.]

Peter the ROCK of the Church

CATHOLIC TRADITION - The foundation stone of the church is Peter.

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Jesus Christ alone is the foundation of the church. Peter was a mere man like ourselves. He was not even the best of men. Note that the Lord declared Peter to be "Satan" (Matthew 16:23) when he rebuked Jesus' prospect of betrayal and death. Peter rejected Cornelius' effort to worship him, saying, Get up. I myself am also a human being." (Acts 10:26). The Pope would do well to pay heed to this admonition when his lost souls bow to him and kiss his ring. He is not worthy of worship!

BIBLE CITATIONS OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - "...for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, name, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). "Jesus said to them, 'Did you never read in the Scriptures, ?'" (Matthew 21:42).

RESPONSE OF A CATHOLIC - The critic's citation of 1 Corinthians is purposely misleading. He gives a fragment of a text and twists its meaning to his purposes. Let us look at the previous verse of which 11 is a part: "According to the grace of God given to me [St. Paul], like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, ..." (1 Corinthians 3:10). Catholics would agree that Jesus is the center of our Christian faith; however, this passage is about the accountability of those in God's service. It is in this sense that it refers to Peter, Paul, and any and all of the other shepherds of the Church. Peter is only a rock in a secondary sense to Christ who is the true foundation stone. He is the visible head of the entire Church, Vicar of Christ, the invisible head. He has been given a privileged place in the Church to care for the Lord's flock. He is to be trustworthy and steadfast like a rock against the storms of sin, of flesh, and of the world. Peter's failure in appreciating the saving task which Jesus had to undergo would earn him a rebuke; later his denial of Christ would earn him shame. However, despite his weaknesses, he is the one selected out by Christ as the head of the Apostles and the "rock" upon which Christ would build his Church. Note that the roles of the builder and the rock seem to blurr or to be interchanged in the Scriptural texts. Something of this becomes understandable if we appreciate the incarnation of Christ by grace in his followers. The Church is holy because Christ is holy. The ministries and works of the Church are also Christs. He identifies himself and his authority especially in his Apostles and in their successors. Note later in 1 Corinthains 3:16: "Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" Later, in chapter 4, verse 1, St. Paul says something which wonderfully resonates with the Pope as the Servant of the Servants of God: "Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries (sacraments?) of God." The business about worship is hardly worthy of a response. We do not worship the Pope. We respect and honor him as an important and holy personage, but no more. Is a man on one knee proposing marriage to his beloved stealing the worship proper to God? No. Is the custom of a man kissing a lady's hand blasphemous? No. Is the bow rendered to royalty a violation of God's due. I sure hope not. Again, the anti-Catholic bigot proves himself silly and stumbling over himself in bearing false witness against Catholicism.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [Christ's promise to St. Peter that he will be the head of the Apostles and visible foundation the Church together with him] "Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Then Jesus answered and said, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'" (Matthew 16:16-19). [Our Lord healed Peter from his thrice denial and makes him shepherd of his entire flock] "When, therefore, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, Son of John, dost thou love me more than these do?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' A third time he said to him, 'Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him for the third time, 'Dost thou love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee.' He said to him, 'Feed my sheep'" (John 21:15-17). [Peter confirms the faith of the other Apostles, alludes to papal infallibility in faith] "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:32).

Good Works an Element of Salvation

CATHOLIC BELIEF - Good works have a part to play in our salvation.

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Fundamentalists tend to say that good works are the fruits which come from being saved. They would insist that they are not a means to salvation. If a person is is one of the elect, it will be manifested by his good works as one filled with Christ's spirit. It is not the works, but the blood of Christ which earns salvation. Sometimes Catholics quote James 2:20 in their defense that "faith without works is useless"; however, all this means is that the type of faith which is saving is one which manifests the work of God. Note that James 2:19 has the demons believing and trembling. Theirs is not a saving faith. Many say they believe in Jesus and yet they refuse to follow him. Theirs is not a saving faith. A person of true faith experiences the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and good works will find expression in his life. Such works are a confirmation of true faith. The model of Abraham is recalled in james 2:21-23 in which he believd in God to the extent of being willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac. God came first and he trusted that God could still keep his promises, no matter what.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Blood of Christ saves] "... and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). {incomplete} [Faith alone saves] "And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). {incomplete} "They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forbearance of God -- to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus. What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:24-28).

RESPONSE OF A CATHOLIC - This last Scripture text might be a bit misleading. The works mentioned here are not those which constitute an element of our faith in Christ. The argument here is not entirely different from the circumcision debate at the council in Jerusalem. The tension is not between faith and good deeds but Christian faith and the Jewish law. This contrast becomes clear if we read further: "Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles, for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law" (Romans 3:29-31). The interpretation given to James makes me cringe. James says quite bluntly, "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:20). Mentioning Abraham, it was not that his works were just a fruit of his faith; rather, they were a vital ingredient of it. "You see that faith was active ALONG WITH his works, and faith was COMPLETED by the works" (James 2:22). The reformer, Martin Luther admitted that the Letter of James could not be reconciled with his view that we were saved by faith alone. Consequently, he omitted this letter from his bible. Others readmitted this wonderfully Catholic testimony back into the Protestant bible. The anti-Catholic's stereotype of the Church's view of justification is inexact and misleading. Regarding the need for a faith which ushers in saving grace, there would be concord. Further, it is obvious that a true faith will show itself with good fruits. Again, there is no argument here, except in the critic's own mind. The citation from James cited here is not entirely as the fundamentalist describes. It appears that James is indeed offering a correction to an exaggeration of the Pauline view. The Catholic Church herself admits that good works cut off from faith and sanctifying grace would avail us nothing. The one extreme would contend that good deeds earn salvation; the other, that faith in the Lord (dedicating themselves to trust in God through Jesus) would suffice. Paul actually steers a middle course by speaking about the importance of faith lived out in love (Galatians 5). Dynamic faith is not only a profession in words but an interior disposition actuated by the grace of God and substantiated by the life of charity. The Catholic stress on the incarnation is crucial here. If Christ is alive inside of us, then the good deeds we perform are ultimately the works of Christ. Because they are the extension of the Lord's saving activity, they have merit. Justification is intimately bound up with our entry into God's community of faith, the Church. Baptism is the entry into this life and the sacraments are the essential means of our growth. Faith and works (in love) are two sides of the same coin; there may be some tension between these elements, but no strict division.

THE UNIVERSAL CATECHISM ON FAITH & WORKS:

[CCC #1814] Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God" (DV 5). For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work[s] through charity" (Romans 1:17; Galatians 5:6).

[CCC #1815] The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it (Trent). But "faith apart from works is dead" (James 2:26): when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

[CCC #1816] The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks" (LG 42). Service and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, Ia lso will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32-33).

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [Blood of Christ saves if we walk in God's ways (good works with faith) in the community of the Church] "But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7) [Faith (in Jesus), charity (in caring for injuries and feeding the hungry) and the certain hope of salvation (in baptism) comes to us as a Christian family] "And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.' 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 16:31-34). [Remarking about Abraham] "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:24-26). [Faith, Hope, and Love] "For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6).