Redefining Marriage

Folks,

My friend Jim McCrea alerted me to an article at the National Catholic Register concerning the militant homosexual redefinition of marriage. The reader may find the text of this two-part article at the following web links:

Redefining Marriage, Part 1: Who's to Blame?

Redefining Marriage, Part 2: The Root of the Problem

Here is the bottom line:

• No "co-habitation"
• No fornication
• No adultery
• No contraception
• No abortion
• No homosexual behavior
• No bigamy
• No polygamy

No human being has any authority at any time and at any place and under any circumstance to ever separate the unitive and the procreative aspects of the conjugal union within the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

These rules apply to everyone everywhere at any time in the past, present and future. This is not dependent on race, skin color, religion, creed, gender, culture, age, or even supposed "sexual orientation." All single people and all so-called homosexual people are called to celibacy - no sexual intercourse outside of marriage between one man and one woman. There are no exceptions. Consequences for purposeful unrepentant disobedience are simple: the eternal fires of hell. Consequences for obedience to God's Law are equally simple: eternal paradise with Him in Heaven.

Father Corapi's Latest Post: Thoughts on Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Independence

Folks,

Father Corapi's latest post, "Text: Thoughts on Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Independence", may be read by left clicking your mouser cursor on the aforementioned hyperlinked text. An audio recording is provided here: Audio: Thoughts on Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Independence.

Though I have grave reservations about this entire situation over Father Corapi, his accuser, and the actions and statements of the "Bishopry" and SOLT overseeing this mess, until it is proven that he has committed wrong-doing, I shall give him the benefit of doubt.

Reader Comment on The False Doctrine of "The Trail of Blood - Baptist Successionism"

Folks,

Referencing the book "Baptist Successionism" by Baptist historian Dr. James McGoldrick (whose photograph is provided), my friend Scotju offered the following comment with regard to yesterday's post, "Reader Comment on The False Doctrine of 'The Trail of Blood - Baptist Successionism.'"

There's a book that was written by Baptist historian James McGoldrick that totally demolishes the Trail of Blood thesis. "Baptist Successionism" proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the groups claimed as spiritual ancestors by the TOB zealots were heretical Catholics or Gnostics. None of these groups were even close to the Baptists in doctrine or practise. The only thing they even had in commen with the Anabaptists was adult baptism. And like the Anabaptist, the first English Baptists baptized by pouring, not immersion. That alone demolishes their claim of succession, because if immersion was the right way, why didn't the first so-called TOB Baptists get it right 2000 years ago?

The question I have for the believers in the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" who also support the notion of "Trail of Blood - Baptist Succession" is this: if Scripture is the ONLY authoritative voice for your doctrine, then why do you need a book like "Trail of Blood - Baptist Succession" to explain your history? It should be self-evident from Scripture. Or, like the Catholic Church, do you need a tradition after all? As 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 states:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

The keeper of that Tradition is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1st Timothy 3:15)  founded on the Rock that is Peter (Matthew 16:18).

Rev John MacArthur on Homosexuality

Folks,

Thanks go to Frank Tomi for this blog entry.

Protestant clergyman John MacArthur preaches a sermon that few if any priests outside of Father John Corapi would have the courage to preach. I realize that the following video is over an hour long, but it is well worth watching and listening to. I don't agree with all of Rev MacArthur's Protestantism, but his word study of the Greek for "effeminate," and other such studies in their relationship to the sin of homosexual behavior in the early Church are downright excellent.

Homosexuality: By John MacArthur



Now while we may question Father Corapi in this time of scandal, he was the one priest to do what John MacArthur has done: confront this issue of sexual perversion directly and boldly. He is now essentially ostracized. Thus, God is raising sons to Abraham from the stones themselves (Matthew 3:9) because Catholic clergymen like Bishop Hubbard will NOT respond consistent with the Gospel. In fact, Bishop Hubbard's contribution to scandal is prominently noted on the right side of the page at Protestant web site, Bible Study Space. It is no wonder that my recent Baptist detractor making comments at this web site finds so much wrong with the Catholic Church.

Please also read Catawissa Gazetteer on Scandal Breaks out in New York, and the Detroit Free Fress on Senior Vatican Adviser Wants Communion Rite Taken Away from Andrew Cuomo Over Same-Sex Marriage Stance.

Catawissa Gazetteer says it best:

I'll take the Bishops seriously when they quit pandering to Albany for funding for Catholic schools and when they publicly forbid Cuomo the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Until they take these steps, and I believe that funding and their refusal to punish Cuomo are linked, they can write all the letters they want and nothing will change.

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1st Corinthians 6:9-10)

P.S., I do have a MacArthur Study Bible in my collection. I prefer, however, Father George Haydock's Study Bible in the Douay-Rheims version.

One last thing: over the past two days (Monday and Tuesday) we read in the Daily Scripture Readings the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19. This is no coincidence.

The False Doctrine of "The Trail of Blood - Baptist Successionism"

Fictional Diagram of Baptist Successionism

Folks.

First, this blog entry is NOT directed towards any of my Facebook Baptist friends who may read this once it gets copied over to my Facebook notes page. This is a response to a very specific comment from a reader of my blog site, Commentarius de Prognosticis, who claims "Baptist Successionism" since New Testament times without citing any corroborating historical evidence. Furthermore, this is NOT a condemnation of any Baptist denomination or tradition. Rather, this is an entry pointed directly against the non-historical proposition of "Baptist Successionism" since the first century AD. So again, do NOT get offended; I can't possibly please everyone with what I write, nor shall I try. And yes, I find much to admire in my Baptist friends, among which is their love for the Lord Jesus and zeal for His Holy Word. But when there is a false notion voiced in the "com-box" of my blog site, then I shall do my best to explain from Scripture, history and science why it is false. And if I am incorrect, then I expect intelligent rebuttal with citation of pertinent Scriptural, historical and scientific sources. Saying "I'm right and you're wrong" without any attempt to actually discuss the issue intelligently and rationally will get your comment deleted - period. It's OK to laugh at me (as this reader did); it's not OK to fail to use the brain that God gave you.

My friend Catawissa Gazetteer observed the following with respect to this morning's entry, "The Origin of Baptists and Anabaptists:"

"'The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant' (Cardinal John Henry Newman - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).

This is why the average Protestant will refuse to debate on historical grounds. Like most Catholics, they're woefully ill informed about the history of the Church and would rather appeal to emotion because that is something that they understand."

Nevertheless, the question of where my Protestant detractor got the fallacious notion that Baptists have been around since the time of Christ was nagging at me. Of course the detractor provided no web link to any substantiating source document, so I began searching and found an article at Steve Ray's Defenders of the Catholic Faith blog site which explains everything:

The Trail of Blood-Baptist Successionism

Apparently an individual by the name of J. M. Carroll made up a fictional history, calling it "The Trail of Blood," because supposedly we Catholics murdered all the good Baptists since the first century AD and subsequently suppressed any historical mention of them. At the beginning of this post I have included the fictional time-line diagram that Carroll fabricated. Carroll deliberately intended to denigrate the Catholic Church while promoting the false notion of the presence of Baptists since the time of John the Baptizer. "Carroll identifies many divergent groups throughout history, claiming them as baptistic. These groups are a montage of unrelated sects and heretics, including the Albigenses, Cathari, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians and more." Each of these groups was heretical, but in ways that differed widely from the man-made Baptist tradition that actually started in the 1500s in Europe and 1600s in England. Please do take the time to read the article; it's only five pages long. The ending includes a statement by Leon McBeth, who is a professor of Church History at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, the former chairman of the Texas Baptist Historical Committee, the former president of the Historical Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the former president of the Southern Baptist Historical Society. In this statement even the esteemed Dr. McBeth points out the following:

"No major historian today holds to the organic succession of Baptist churches. This view was based on inadequate sources, was more polemical than historical, and made large assumptions where evidence was lacking. This interpretation arose in a time of intense denominational competition and helped reassure some Baptists that theirs was the true church."

There is only One True Church. It is the one that Jesus Christ founded on the Rock that is Peter as recorded in Matthew 16:18. All history demonstrates the validity of this statement. Fabrications to the contrary are delusional at best.

The Origin of Baptists and Anabaptists

Folks,

Our Protestant detractor returned to explain that her husband - the man with whom I had once worked at a previous place of employment - was the "protester" against this blog site's overt Catholicism, and was using her blogger identifier to make entries. There was no attempt to refute the Scriptural explanations I gave in defense of calling priests "Father" or against the non-Biblical doctrine of "Sola Scriptura." From all appearances these hadn't even been read. The only intelligible thing I could gather from the response is, "I am right and you are wrong; Catholics are not Christians and Anabaptists are the True Church." So until these individuals can offer cogent rebuttal, their comments are now simply rejected. This blog site is not a democracy. However, I would have welcomed rational debate and am disappointed to not have my intellect challanged (and it really doesn't take all that much intellectual prowess to challenge my feeble intellectual abilities).

Neverthess, for those interested in the origins of Anabaptists (which means "to baptize again" because thse people rejected infant baptism) and Baptists, please read the following articles at the New Advent Encyclopedia:

Baptists

Anabaptists

John Smyth started the Baptists in England in 1612 and Ulricht Zwigli is among the most prominent in 1525 who started the Anabaptists. Today there are hundreds of Baptist denominations each claiming to be "the" way, and some even openly condemning the others. There is no historical evidence for the existence of the Baptists or Anabaptists prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, and certainly not in the time of Christ or immediately following in the first 400 years after His death and resurrection. All review of the writings of the early Church Fathers (St. Clement, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, etc.) clearly demonstrates that the Church was always Catholic (i.e., Universal) from the very beginning. There is an unbroken line of Papal succession from the first Pope, the Apostle Peter, and no Portestant denomination can claim such a historial connection to the New Testament Church (which is after all the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church):

The List of Popes

The bottom line is this: intelligent discussion is welcomed. But if one's argument is Martin Luther's argument that, "You're wrong and I am right," then dialogue stops right there and the comment enters the trash bin. People like this who claim they believe in the Bible are either deluding themselves or lying outright, for the Bible teaches none of what they claim. This has been demonstrated time and again at this blog site.

The Fallacy of the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

Folks,

The following is NOT intended as a criticism of any of my dear Protestant friends. It is intended as a continuation in the response to a certain self-described fundamentalist who came onto this blog site, Commentarius de Prognosticis, explicitly for the purpose of objecting to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So for anyone on Facebook reading this entry once it is automatically copied over onto my Facebook web page, please understand that this is NOT directed towards you. Rather, for that specific person a web link to an article from the Catholic Answers web site debunking her idea of "Sola Scriptura" is provided below (she is the spouse of a fundamentalist with whom I used to work at a previous place of employment, and for whom I have the utmost respect while disagreeing in matters of theology):

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

For those who do not know what the Latin term "Sola Scriptura" means, it refers to the doctrine of "Only Scripture" - a false and non-Biblical doctrine which:

• Denies the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth contrary to 1st Timothy 3:15
• Rejects Sacred Tradition contrary to 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 
• Assumes each believer is empowered to self-interpretation of Sacred Scripture contrary to 2nd Peter 1:20

People who make this error:

• Replace the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mother Church with a man-made tradition created in protest out of the the 1500s
• Behave much as the Pharisees and Sadducees did with their man-made traditions, against which Christ spoke so eloquently in Matthew 15:2–6 and Mark 7:8–13
• Refuse the authority Jesus gave to the See of Peter in Matthew 16:18-19
• Reject the Apostles and their successors to whom the keys of the Kingdom were given in Matthew 18:18

Obama and the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Folks,

Michael Voris' video of Friday, Obama and the Sacred Heart, is worthy of the reader's attention, especially given the Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month on May 31st and the recent victory of homosexuals in redefining marriage in NY State. Please watch and listen to this four minute video and let us remember what St. Paul declared in Romans 1:18-32:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Statement of NY Bishops on Homosexual "Marriage"

Folks,

The Bishops of NY State have issued the following statement in the wake of the NY Legislature passing the homosexual marriage bill and pseudo-Catholic Governor Andy Cuomo signing it  into law. The laud that Bishop Hubbard of the Diocese of Albany heaped on Andy Cuomo's head during his inauguration Mass, and the allowance given him to receive Holy Communion while living with his concubine outside of Holy Matrimony and while supporting homosexual marriage and abortion is the major contributing factor to this sad turn of events. Until and unless the Bishops do to Andy Cuomo what Saint Paul did to Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:19-20 (i.e., hand him over to Satan to be taught the lesson he needs), they have no one but themselves to blame. 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 is quite clear: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

By the way: Andy Cuomo is a liberal progressive Democrat, and Andy Cuomo is trying to shut down the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, NY, the only safe and clean source of electricity that the metropolitan area has, because of anti-nuclear hysteria and fear-mongering.

Statement of the Bishops of New York State

The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled.

We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves. This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths.

We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.

Our society must regain what it appears to have lost – a true understanding of the meaning and the place of marriage, as revealed by God, grounded in nature, and respected by America’s foundational principles.

+Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
+Howard J. Hubbard
Bishop of Albany
+Nicholas DiMarzio
Bishop of Brooklyn
+Edward U. Kmiec
Bishop of Buffalo
+Terry R. LaValley
Bishop of Ogdensburg
+Matthew H. Clark
Bishop of Rochester
+William F. Murphy
Bishop of Rockville Centre
+Robert J. Cunningham
Bishop of Syracuse

The Biblical Practice of Calling Priests "Father"

Folks,

As mentioned previously this morning, a fundamentalist in the com box objected to this blog site's practice of referring to Roman Catholic priests as "Fathers." The Catholic Answers web site has an excellent explanation for the Biblical practice of calling priests "Father." For the reader's ease, this explanation is reproduced below. The verses of Scripture to which this article refers have been hyperlinked so that the reader can "point and click" to read the actual referenced Scripture.

Call No Man "Father"?

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."

Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy".

How should Catholics respond to such objections?

The Answer

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

A Change with the New Testament?

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

So What Did Jesus Mean?

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

The Apostles Show the Way

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.

As can be seen, the fundamentalists objecting to the Biblical practice of calling priests "Father" have not read the entirety of Sacred Scripture, or having read it, have not understood what they read. The alternative - that they have read Scripture and rejected what does not agree with their man-made tradition - means that they are doing exactly what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees and Sadducees in Mark 7:6-9.

On a personal note, it seems as though people who call themselves "Bible believing fundamentalists" are neither Bible-believing nor very fundamentalist at all.

Pope Benedict XVI's Homily for Corpus Christi

Folks,

The Scripture readings for the Solemnity of Corpus Christi may be found here. Pope Benedict XVI's homily on the same may be found here.

While I was incomunicado this weekend, a fundamentalist recently came to this blog site, deriding Catholicism, and insisting that I convert and attend a "fundamentalist Bible believing church." The fact of the matter is that I do attend a Bible believing Church - the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from whom, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Bible came to the rest of the world. Ironically this same fundamentalist denies Jesus' own words about His Body and Blood in John 6:51-58 that our Holy Father so eloquently talked about yesterday. It is most curious that such people will so readily insist on the need to believe in the literal interpretation of Moses' words in Genesis 1 and 2, but refuse the same belief in Jesus' words.

Later on there will be more to say about this person's disparaging remarks on calling priests "Father" exactly as St. Paul called himself "Father" in Philippians 2:22. It is important that we give a defense for the faith once delivered unto the Saints and rebuke the spirit of protest (whether in or outside of the Church) that has resulted in the ascendency of schism, heresy and apostasy since the so-called "Protestant" (i.e., the "protesting") Reformation. To protest against Holy Mother Church is to protest against the Body of Christ, hence the importance of this topic given that yesterday was the Solemnity of Corpus Christi.

Father Corapi and the Blogs

Folks,

Father Corapi's latest statement may be found here:

Please Understand This, I Have Not Left The Church

Michael Voris' latest video may be found here:

Corapi and the Blogs

The one group of people who benefit the most from this scandal are the liberal progressive clergy and laity who have exchanged the Gospel of conversion and repentance for the social justice talking points of the Demokratik Party.

Is It Possible for a Christian to Become the Enemy of God?

Folks,

I received the following in an e-mail from Rick Renner Ministries, a Protestant organization which (as I have explained repeatedly on prior occasions) does a rather good job of word studies in the original Greek New Testament. This morning's word study is most appropriate (regardless that its Fundamentalist streak may not be universally appealing).

Is It Possible for a Christian To Become the Enemy of God?

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
-James 4:4

How does God view a believer who once walked with Him and knew the power of the Holy Spirit but has now become so entangled in the world that he hardly ever picks up his Bible to read it, rarely prays, and comes to church only if it "fits" into his schedule of things to do? How does God look on it when a believer departs from the red-hot spiritual passion he once possessed and turns his devotion to other things?

James 4:4 says, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." This verse tells us exactly how God feels about a believer who wanders away from Him.

I want you to notice the word "is" in this verse. It is from the Greek word kathistemi, which means to constitute or to render. This is very important, for it alerts us to the fact that when a believer chooses to take a worldly path, he sets himself in direct opposition to the godly path God desires for him. As a result of the choices he has made, he has rendered, constituted, or caused himself to become the "enemy" of God.

I know that the word "enemy" is strong, so let's see what it means. The word "enemy" is the Greek word echthros. This word is usually used to describe enemies in a war or enemies in a military conflict. It is the picture of two nations who are in opposition to one another and have therefore engaged in a military conflict. They are warring nations. They feel hostility, antagonism, and even animosity toward each other.

In Luke 23:12, the word echthros is used to communicate the enmity and animosity that existed between Pilate and Herod Antipas before they became allies at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Prior to forming their new alliance, Pilate and Herod Antipas were fiercely hostile toward one another. Jealousy and competition raged between these two men. They were enemies.

So the meaning of the word echthros in James 4:4 is unquestionable. It is the picture of a hostile force. But now James uses this word to express the feelings and emotions that God possesses toward a believer who transfers his devotion and passion from Him to the world. By using this word, James tells us that if a believer chooses to make his relationship with the world a greater priority than his relationship with God, he is making a choice that will put him in direct opposition to God. In fact, the word echthros lets us know that God takes this decision so personally that He views it as an act of war! To God, this is the ultimate violation!

I realize that Romans 8:31 says, "If God be for us, who can be against us?" But by the same token, if God takes a stand against us and our activities because our actions are wrong, our plans and pursuits will be frustrated and paralyzed, and we will not succeed in our endeavors. God is not against us being blessed or having a lot of possessions. But He is against whatever takes His place in our hearts. When the things of the world move from our hands into our hearts, that is the violation that concerns God the most!

In Matthew 6:24, Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." According to these words of Jesus, it is impossible for us to give our hearts simultaneously to two masters. We must choose whom we are going to serve: God or mammon.

"Mammon" was an expression used by the Jewish community of New Testament times to express the idea of worldliness. So when Jesus said it was impossible to serve God and mammon, He was actually saying that it is impossible to serve both God and worldliness.

The word "serve" is the Greek word doulos, which describes a servant or a slave. This word was used to denote a servant who had become a slave for the rest of his life. This servant's lifetime responsibility was to "service" his master with all his attention, time, and energy. In other words, he catered to his master's every wish, desire, or demand. He was there to help, assist, and fulfill his master's wants and dreams to the exclusion of all else. This servant's entire existence was to "service" his master in whatever way the master asked or demanded.

Let me give you this example. When you purchase a car or a washing machine, these machines will operate for a while without your attention. However, a time comes when you must give your attention to them in order to keep them in good working order. And if you own a house or apartment, you know that a home requires all kinds of time, attention, energy, and money in order to keep it in good shape. In other words, all these natural possessions must be "serviced."

When Jesus told us, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon," He was telling us that both God and mammon require time, attention, energy, and money. Jesus knew that there is not enough of you and me to properly "service" both God and worldliness in our lives. Hence, we must choose which master we are going to serve. Once that decision is made, we must then "hate the one and love the other."

To truly serve God, you must spend time with Him so you can know His voice and develop a pattern of obedience in your daily walk. It will demand your fullest attention. The work of God must be "serviced' with prayer, obedience, repentance, and worship.

If a person chooses to serve "mammon" (worldliness) instead of the Lord, he will have to turn his attention and devotion to the world. As a worldly person, he will be required to learn the ways of the world and to adapt to the thinking of the world. Serving the world and worldliness requires 100 percent of a person's attention.

Just as serving God requires your time, attention, energy, and money, the world will demand the same from you. This is why Jesus said it isn't possible to serve both God and mammon. You see, there just isn't enough of you to serve both of these masters simultaneously, so you must choose whom you are going to serve.

So let me ask you this: Whom are you serving in your life right now? What most requires your time and attention? Can you truthfully say you are giving God your fullest attention and that the chief priority in your life is to serve and obey Him? Or must you confess that worldly pursuits, possessions, and corporate success consume your thoughts and energies?

If you are consumed with God, these other things will take a lower place on your list of priorities. But if you are consumed with the world, material things will dominate the landscape of your mind. So just stop and ask yourself, What do I think about more than anything else in life? Your answer will probably tell you whom you are serving the most with your heart.

James 4:6 tells us that God takes a stand against a believer who turns his devotion to the world and becomes worldly. In fact, it says God "resists" such believers. The word "resist" is the Greek word antitasso - a military term that means to militarily order one's self against someone else. This is no accidental, fly-by-night plan of resistance but a well-planned, prepared resistance.

This emphatically declares that God takes it so personally when a believer turns his devotion from Him to the world that He sets Himself in opposition to that believer. Like a military commander, God reviews the situation; then He decides how to resist and frustrate the things this believer is trying to achieve and thus bring him to a place of surrender.

If this believer does not quickly surrender, repent, and come back to where he ought to be, God will continue to take a stand against his activities. The Christian can rebuke the devil all day long, but it will be to no avail, for his problem isn't the devil - his problem is God!

It doesn't matter how smart that person is, how many talents and gifts he possesses, or how hard he works to achieve his goals, things just won't work out right because God is standing in opposition to him, frustrating every step he takes in order to get his attention and help him get his priorities back in divine order.

As terrible as this resistance sounds, it is a manifestation of God's grace! By blocking our way and resisting our choices, the precious Holy Spirit endeavors to get our attention and to bring us to a sweet place of brokenness where sin is confessed and fellowship with God is restored

You see, God is so passionate about your relationship with Him that He is unwilling to share you with the world. That doesn't mean you can't have a job or be successful. In most cases, you must have a job, and God wants you to be successful. But if you switch your allegiance from God to the world around you, God views that as the ultimate violation in His sight. It is the very act that causes Him to decide to rise up and to do something to bring you back to where you ought to be!

So I advise you to take a good look at your life and make sure your priorities are where they need to be! Make sure you are more aligned with the Lord than with the world around you! Otherwise, God may step forward to deliberately frustrate your plans in order to bring you back to where you ought to be! 

Lord, I am running to You! I want to be as close to You as I can possibly be! I don't want even the smallest hint of worldliness in my life. I want to be like You, to think like You, and to please You in every part of my life - my family, my job, my relationships, and my finances. Holy Spirit, if there is any part of me that has been influenced wrongly by the world, I ask You to please show it to me and help me get it corrected.
I pray this in Jesus' name!

I confess that I am on fire for Jesus Christ! I am alive to God and dead to the world around me. Nothing means more to me than pleasing Jesus. Every day of my life, I live to serve Him and to do His will. Although I live in the world, I am not of the world. I am a citizen of Heaven, living with eternity at the forefront of my mind!
I declare this by faith in Jesus' name! 
 
1. Has there ever been a time when you unintentionally allowed your devotion to slip away from the Lord as your attention was drawn to the world around you?
2. What did you do to get back to where you needed to be with the Lord?
3. During that time when you wandered away from the Lord, did you sense that God was supernaturally working behind the scenes to get your attention and to bring you back home spiritually?

Relevant Radio Statement on Fr. Corapi

Folks,

Relevant Radio has issued the following statement with audio commentary in Drew Mariani's interview of Fr. Rocky on the matter of Fr. Corapi:

In the wake of Fr. John Corapi's recent statements, Relevant Radio asks our listeners to continue to pray for Fr. Corapi and all involved.

Relevant Radio has confidence that the Holy Spirit guides the Bishops and the other competent ecclesiastical authorities in their governance of the Church, for this is what Jesus promised. In the case of Fr. Corapi, Catholics should defer to the proper ecclesiastical authorities and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially since the facts of the case are unknown to us.

Furthermore, Executive Director of Relevant Radio Rev. Francis J. Hoffman, JCD -- himself a doctor of Canon Law -- has stated that "Canonical procedures currently in place are the fruit of two thousand years of pastoral experience in the Church, and while they are not perfect, they truly function for the salvation of souls and seek to preserve the unity of the Church, something which Jesus prayed for the night before he died."

Fr. Rocky Interview on The Drew Mariani Show

Blog Site Monitoring

Folks,

Using tools such as Google Analytics and other methods I have discovered that someone is monitoring the number of visits being made to this blog site from the following URL address:

http://beta.statcounter.com/p4376794/camefrom_activity/

This monitoring commenced just over the past couple of weeks. I find this most curious. Who would want to know how many visitors are coming to my blog site and why? And is that the only data being collected? Perhaps a reader may be able to shed some light on this.

St. Paul on Advice Given for Fr. Corapi's Civil Law Suit

Folks,

Father Corapi stated in a June 21st entry at his blogsite:

"Many have asked, or criticized, me concerning the reason I filed a civil defamation suit against the accuser in this case. It is because the two men I respect most in the Catholic Church advised me to do so. Fr. James Flanagan, Founder and most respected member of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, and Bishop Rene Gracida, the former Bishop of Corpus Christi, had a meeting on this matter. The result was that they advised me strongly to file a civil defamation suit. Why would they do this? Because they felt it was the only way I could receive a fair and just hearing. This advice was conveyed to me through Fr. Tony Anderson of the Society of Our Lady."

Have those advising him considered 1st Corinthians 6:1-8?

“How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones? Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters? If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers? But rather brother goes to court against brother, and that before unbelievers? Now indeed (then) it is, in any case, a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? Instead, you inflict injustice and cheat, and this to brothers.”

Calling Fr. Corapi the Black Sheepdog Home

Folks,

I agree with this video:

Calling Back Black Sheepdog Home

As St. Joseph Communications points out, "Because the priesthood is so sacred, we felt that we had to respond to the recent announcement by Fr. John Corapi. We would like to share with you a short video on YouTube on how you can support Fr. Corapi in his priesthood. Due to Fr. Corapi’s situation and it’s ramifications for the Church, we feel that it is importart to point out that the faithful have a responsibily to react according to the mind of Christ and for love of the Catholic priesthood and Fr. Corapi in particular."

The New York Times and The Church 06-21

Folks,

Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV offers some sobering thoughts this evening:

The New York Times and The Church 06-21

While Michael Voris makes no mention of this, I have to wonder (regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Fr. Corapi's course of action in the wake of the accusations against him) if Fr. Corapi is being given the Church's hind end because he is truly a manly man, and a manly priest, and the effeminate clergy in charge are threatened by that. As Michael Voris points out, the following statement by Maureen Dowd in her opinion piece, The Archbishop vs the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera, hits the proverbial nail square on its head:

"The Church refused to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexuality a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying."

Here we have a godless liberal progressive democrat who has - as unlikely as it seems - identified for all to see the crux of the matter. And I would imagine that because Fr. Corapi is exactly the opposite of this effeminancy and homosexuality in the clergy, he now faces complete rejection.

This situation is not going to get any better - and in fact will quite probably worsen in completely unforeseen ways - until the liberal progressives in the clergy repent, or failing that are removed. They are the ones who have supported this homosexual filth all long - "let's be tolerant and inclusive and nice and kind." They are the ones who for 40+ years have weakened the Church in America by failing to preach the Gospel of repentance and conversion, instead adopting the platform of the Democratic Party as their own gospel for social justice. Now we have a mess. Jesus will win in the end, but as St. Anathasius said around 325 AD, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Father Corapi's Blog Post of June 21st

Folks,

Father Corapi's latest blog post may be found here:

Tuesday Morning, June 21st

I found many of the comments echoing what I have been thinking and feeling.

Father Corapi - Black Sheepdog Unleashed

Folks,

Father Corapi's latest audio recording update dated 06/20/2011 may be found by left clicking your mouse cursor on the hyperlinked text below:

Black Sheepdog Unleashed

Please continue to pray for Father Corapi.

Official SOLT Statement Regarding Fr John Corapi

Folks,

The following statement is from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity

Monday, 20 June 2011
Official SOLT Statement Regarding Fr John Corapi

As the Regional Priest Servant of the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT), I issue the following statement on behalf of the Society.

On 16 March 2011, the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas, and the SOLT received a complaint against Fr. John Corapi, SOLT. As is normal procedure and due to the gravity of the accusation alleging conduct not in concert with the priestly state or his promises as a member of an society of apostolic of diocesan right, Fr. Corapi was suspended from active ministry (put on administrative leave) until such a time that the complaint could be fully investigated and due process given to Fr. Corapi. In the midst of the investigation, the SOLT received a letter from Fr. Corapi, dated June 3, 2011, indicating that, because of the physical, emotional and spiritual distress he has endured over the past few years, he could no longer continue to function as a priest or a member of the SOLT. Although the investigation was in progress, the SOLT had not arrived at any conclusion as to the credibility of the allegations under investigation.

At the onset, the Bishop of Corpus Christi advised the SOLT to not only proceed with the policies outlined in their own constitution, but also with the proper canonical procedures to determine the credibility of the allegations against Fr. Corapi. We reiterate that Fr. Corapi had not been determined guilty of any canonical or civil crimes. If the allegations had been found to be credible, the proper canonical due process would have been offered to Fr. Corapi, including his right to defense, to know his accuser and the complaint lodged, and a fair canonical trial with the right of recourse to the Holy See. On June 17, 2011, Fr. John Corapi issued a public statement indicating that he has chosen to cease functioning as a priest and a member of the SOLT.

The SOLT is deeply saddened that Fr. Corapi is suffering distress. The SOLT is further saddened by Fr. Corapi’s response to these allegations. The SOLT will do all within its power to assist Fr. Corapi if he desires to seek a dispensation from his rights and obligations as a priest and as a professed member of the SOLT. We request your prayers and the intercession of the Blessed Mother for the healing of Fr. Corapi and for any who have been negatively affected by Fr. Corapi’s decision to end his ministry as a priest and a member of the SOLT.

Fr Gerrard Sheehan, SOLT
Regional Priest Servant

Why Father Corapi Matters

Folks,

I encourage you to read and ponder the following essay over at the Catholic Champion web site:

Why Father Corapi Matters: Father's Day 2011

Satan hates orthodox, conservative Roman Catholic priests who are manly men, which is what Father Corapi is.

Satan loves heterodox, liberal clergy who are effeminate people-pleasers.

In these troubling times we need to keep our eyes on Jesus.

Sigificant Common Ground Found with Pentecostals

Folks,

The following is from the Zenit News Agency. This is special to me because my family (Mom and siblings) are members of the Assemblies of God, and I have met and (on rare occasion) communicated with Bishop Burbidge of Raleigh, NC.

"Significant Common Ground" Found With Pentecostals
6th Round of Conversations Considers Gifts of Holy Spirit

VATICAN CITY, JUNE 17, 2011 (Zenit.org).- The Vatican's ecumenism council initiated a sixth phase in conversation with Pentecostal groups, saying a final report should be ready by 2015.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity reported on a seven-day round of conversations that concluded Thursday.

The Catholic-Pentecostal teams are considering Charisms in the Church: Their Spiritual Significance, Discernment, and Pastoral Implications.

Dialogue between the Vatican and these Pentecostal groups began in 1972.

The goal is not "structural unity," the Vatican statement clarified, but "to promote mutual respect and understanding in matters of faith and practice."

Bishop Michael Burbidge of Raleigh, North Carolina, and Reverend Cecil Robeck, professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, Assemblies of God in Pasadena, California, are co-chairs of the dialogue.

"Our work and conversations this week have led Catholics and Pentecostals to a deeper understanding and appreciation for some common ground we share regarding charisms of the Holy Spirit," Bishop Burbidge said. "As we continue the dialogue in future years, we are renewed in our commitment to discuss respectfully the challenges that face us as we seek and pray for unity as brothers and sisters in Christ."

The topic of this first session was "Charisms in the Church: Our Common Ground." Other topics on the agenda for the sixth phase are: discernment (2012), healing (2013) and prophecy (2014). It is expected that the final report will be ready by 2015.

The Vatican said participants "rejoiced in the significant amount of common ground that was identified despite the differences between the two traditions. Both Catholics and Pentecostals recognize the abundance of gifts given freely by the Holy Spirit, and that the Church has a discerning role to play concerning their exercise."

The group considered topics such as the biblical foundations of charism, the historical and theological overview of the subject, the spontaneity or permanence of gifts, and the roles of clergy and laity.

Father's Day

Folks,

Today is Father's Day. Let us pray for our priests. Whether we like all of them or not, they are our Fathers whom God has given us to be our shepherds (for that is what the Latin word "Pastor" means: "Shepherd"). We must love them. Here (in last-name alphabetical order) are a few who have touched my life (not always in ways I may have liked, but God isn't concerned with what we like, but with what is for our own good) and for whom I shall be praying:

Fr. Steve Carlson, St. Mark, Wilmington, NC
Fr. Remo DiSalvatore, St. Thomas Aquinas, Charlotte, NC
Fr. Marco Gonzalez, St. Mark, Wilmington, NC
Fr. Stephen Hoyt, St. Thomas Aquinas, Charlotte, NC
Fr. Mark Johnson, St. Peter the Fisherman, Wilmington, NC
Fr. Bob Kus, St. Mary, Wilmington, NC
Fr. Rafael Leon, Burgaw, NC
Fr. Joe Vetter, St. Therese, Wrightsville Beach, NC

And let us especially not forget Fr. John Corapi.

May God bless them and keep them and protect them from Satan's attacks.

Avē Marīa, grātiā plēna, Dominus tēcum.
Benedicta tū in mulieribus,
et benedictus frūctus ventris tuī, Iēsus.
Sāncta Marīa, Māter Deī,
ōrā prō nōbīs peccātōribus,
nunc et in hōrā mortis nostrae.
Āmēn.

Father Corapi Leaving the Active Ministry

Folks,

I leave you to your thoughts. This is a sad day for me.

John Corapi Special Announcement

Father Corapi Leaves Priesthood?

God Love You, God Bless You, and Good-Bye

This Sunday, June 19, 2011, is both Trinity Sunday on the Catholic liturgical calendar and Fathers’ Day on the secular calendar. It is a day I’ll never forget, and sadly so. It is the twentieth anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood in the Catholic Church. For twenty years I was called “father.” I am very thankful for those twenty years. I could have easily died any number of times, any number of ways in my life before that, so I consider it all a bonus, an undeserved bonus. To all of you that have communicated support, ordination anniversary congratulations, and other kind sentiments, I am greatly thankful, and I do not take that for granted.

All things change, only God stays the same, so I have to tell you about a major change in my life. I am not going to be involved in public ministry as a priest any longer. There are certain persons in authority in the Church that want me gone, and I shall be gone. I have been guilty of many things in the course of my life, and could easily and justifiably be considered unfit to engage in public ministry as a priest. The present complaint that you have heard about is, as far as I know, from the one person that I can honestly say I did more to help and support than any human being in my entire life. I forgive her and hope only good things for her. I am not going to get into a back and forth or argument with the Church or anyone else about this matter.

Suffice it to say that I love the Catholic Church and accept what has transpired. Unfortunately, the process used is inherently and fatally flawed, but the bishops have the power, apparently, to operate anyway they see fit. I cannot give a lengthy explanation of what has transpired, but I can tell you that the most likely outcome is that they leave me suspended indefinitely and just let me fade away. They can’t prove I’m guilty of the things alleged because I’m not, and they can’t prove I’m innocent because that is simply illogical and impossible. All civilized societies know that. Certain leaders in the Catholic Church apparently do not.

I accept moving on, but I am not ready to be altogether extinguished just yet. In the final analysis I have only one of only two viable choices:

1. I can quietly lie down and die, or
2. I can go on in ways that I am able to go on.

I did not start this process, the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas ordered my superiors, against their will and better judgment, to do it. He in fact threatened to release a reprehensible and libelous letter to all of the bishops if they did not suspend me. He has a perfect right to do so, and I defend that right. Bishops aren’t bound by civil laws and procedures in internal Church matters. I agree with that, and would defend to the death the Church’s right to proceed as they see fit. He is the bishop and he has the right to govern as he sees fit. It isn’t an easy task. Many forces besiege him, including pressure from other bishops.

My canon lawyer and my civil lawyers have concluded that I cannot receive a fair and just hearing under the Church’s present process. The Church will conclude that I am not cooperating with the process because I refuse to give up all of my civil and human rights in order to hold harmless anyone who chooses to say defamatory and actionable things against me with no downside to them. The case may be on hold indefinitely, but my life cannot be. Some of the things that might surprise you about the way some of the bishops treat accused priests are as follows:

1. The identity of the accuser is not revealed. You can guess, but you don’t actually know. Nor are the exact allegations made known to you. Hence, you have an interesting situation of having to respond to an unknown accuser making unknown accusations (unknown to the accused and his counsel).

2. The persons chosen to investigate the allegations normally have no qualifications to do so. They certainly didn’t graduate from the FBI academy, nor do they have any other background to qualify them to interrogate or otherwise interview witnesses.

3. There are no set rules of evidence or norms of procedure.

4. You are for all practical purposes assumed guilty until you can prove you are innocent. This one is truly baffling. No civilized society operates that way. If you are accused of something you are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. The accused and his counsel have no right to obtain and review any of the evidence against him.

6. The accused and his counsel are not provided the names of witnesses, nor are they permitted to cross-examine them.

7. There is a general unwillingness or outright refusal by certain of the bishops to abide by applicable statutes of limitations, both in canon and civil law. There are good reasons for these statutes. Time has a way of clouding memories and distorting perceptions.

By the way, Canon Law does not dictate this. They choose to selectively ignore or violate both Canon Law and Civil Law, as they deem appropriate and or expeditious. Once again, they apparently have the discretionary power to do this, and if that’s the way it is I have to accept that as reality.

The bottom line is that the only way a just outcome is likely, in my view and that of my counsel, both civil and canon lawyers, is by accident, rather than as a result of the process.

I will not try to fight this irrational and unjust situation for the simple reason that I don’t want to be placed in an adversarial posture against the Church. For 20 years I did my best to guard and feed the sheep. Now, based on a totally unsubstantiated, undocumented allegation from a demonstrably troubled person I was thrown out like yesterday’s garbage. I accept that. Perhaps I deserve that.

I can’t do what I can’t do. I can only do what I can do. I shall continue, black sheep that I am, to speak; and sheep dog that I am, to guard the sheep—this time around not just in the Church, but also in the entire world. I am, indeed, not ready to be extinguished. Under the name “The Black Sheep Dog,” I shall be with you through radio broadcasts and writing. My autobiography, “The Black Sheep Dog,” is almost ready for publication. My topics will be broader than in the past, and my audience likewise is apt to be broader. I’ll do what I can under the circumstances.

Please don’t bother the bishop or complain because it will do no good and it wastes valuable time and energy, both his and yours.

I hope you stay with us and follow us into our new domain and name of “The Black Sheep Dog.” Through writing and broadcasting we hope to continue to dispense truth and hope to a world so much in need of it. For those of you who choose to part company and go away from us, we wish you well and thank you for your many kindnesses over the years. We’ll miss you in our usual meeting places, but assure you that there will be new places for us to meet, just like in “the good old days,” so for now,

God bless you, God love you, and goodbye.

John Corapi (once called “father,” now “The Black Sheep Dog”)

The American Church

Folks,

As Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV points out tonight, "The Church in America has a little too much America and not quite enough Church. That's troublesome, especially when you look at the demise of America."

The American Church

It is hubris of unmitigated proportion to think that our American government can establish Jesus' Kingdom with programs of social justice and the common good, for even He declared to the "dear leader" of His time that His Kingdom is not of this world. But today just as it was 2000 years ago, the crowd cries "Crucifige eum" and demands the release of Barabbas, a social justice revolutionary to be sure. Knowing that "Bar abbas" means "son of the father" in Aramaic, we can therefore find the exchange between Pilate and Jesus ever more thought-provoking:

So Pilate went back into the praetorium and summoned Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered, "Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?" Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?" Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here." So Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" When he had said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I release one prisoner to you at Passover. Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?" They cried out again, "Not this one but Barabbas!" Now Barabbas was a revolutionary. (John 18 33-40)

Fallen Away

Folks,

Consistent with the theme of fallen away Christians (especially Catholic clergy), the late Father Al Lauer of Presentation Ministries speaks on 2nd Corinthians 11:1-11 in today's Daily Scripture Readings. Please take the 14 minutes to listen to his talk which you can access by left clicking your mouse cursor on the hyperlinked text below:

Fallen Away

During his talk, Father Lauer quotes 2nd Peter 2:20-21:

For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.

Truer words about a Catholic (especially clergyman) caught up in the "rapture" of liberalism and progressivism have never been written. It's not the Demokratik Party's gospel of social justice, the common good and peace at any price. It's the Gospel of repentance and conversion. But as verse 22 goes on to describe:

What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, "The dog returns to its own vomit," and "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire."

Yes, folks, the first Pope called these kinds of people dogs and pigs. Pray for repentance and conversion before the day of mercy ends with the pronouncement of justice.

Reactionary Liberalism and Catholic Social Doctrine

Folks,

The following little essay by George Weigel at Catholic Education is a great rebuff against the criticism heaped on House Speaker Boehner by the liberal pseudo-Catholic academicians. Thus, when otherwise normally intelligent people declare pride in being liberal and take stock in this kind of nonsense, all I can think of as a person trained in science and technology is utter shame and disgust. These people ignore all morality and ethics for the sake of bread and circuses, and soon they will have neither. Would that they might move to North Korea or Communist China where they belong before they drag the rest of the country into fiscal and moral oblivion.

Reactionary Liberalism and Catholic Social Doctrine
GEORGE WEIGEL

A review of the basics of Catholic social doctrine is needed.

The debate over Catholic social doctrine and U.S. social welfare policy took an unhelpful turn in May when a gaggle of academics fired a shot across the bow of House Speaker John Boehner, prior to his commencement address at the Catholic University of America. Their charge? That Boehner's House voting record showed him to be a man who fails "to recognize (whether out of a lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching."

Why? Because he had not supported legislation that, in the professors' view, addressed "the desperate needs of the poor."

Speaker Boehner, a Catholic with a solid pro-life voting record, is a big boy who can defend his votes on various issues.

What bothered me about the open letter to Boehner was its tone (smarmy), its assumptions about the one-to-one correspondence between the principles of Catholic social doctrine and the policy preferences of the Democratic Party, and its suggestion that anyone who challenges that linkage is in "dissent" from settled Catholic teaching.

The 2012 election seems likely to be defined by a major national debate on the welfare state, government spending, and social responsibility. If libertarian minimalism of the sort espoused by Ron Paul sits poorly with the rich and complex tradition of Catholic social doctrine, so does reactionary liberalism of the sort espoused by the anti-Boehner pedagogues.

So perhaps a review of the basics is in order, to put the forthcoming argument on a more secure footing.

1. The Church's concern for the poor does not imply a "preferential option" for Big Government.

The social doctrine teaches that the problem of poverty is best addressed by empowerment: enabling poor people to enter the circle of productivity and exchange in society.

The responsibility for that empowerment falls on everyone: individuals, through charitable giving and service work; voluntary organizations, including the Church; businesses and trade unions.

Government at all levels can play a role in this process of empowerment, but it is a serious distortion of the social doctrine to suggest that government has exclusive responsibility here.

On the contrary: in the 1991 social encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the "Social Assistance State" because it saps welfare-recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.

2. Fiscal prudence is a matter of justice extended toward future generations, and is therefore an inter-generational moral imperative (as is provision for the retired elderly).

To leave mountains of unserviceable debt to future generations is shameful.

The reactionary defense of governmental pension and social welfare programs with no evident concern for their fiscal implications violates the moral structure of Catholic social doctrine: the portside analogue to a cool indifference toward the fate of the poor.

3. There are legitimate disagreements about the implications of the Church's social doctrine for American social welfare policy.

On the contrary: in the 1991 social encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the "Social Assistance State" because it saps welfare-recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.

To suggest that the social doctrine provides obvious, clear-cut answers to questions about the future of Medicare or Medicaid is to misrepresent that teaching.

To charge someone with "dissent" from Church teaching because that someone disagrees with one's own prudential judgments about the application of the social doctrine to complex policy issues is a serious misuse of the notion of "dissent" and borders on calumny (a false statement that "harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them" – Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2477).

It ill behooves anyone to make such a charge; it particularly ill behooves academics who publicly dissent from settled Catholic teaching on marital chastity, sexual morality, and qualifications for Holy Orders from chairs at Catholic universities.

4. The moral imperative to legally protect innocent human life from conception until natural death is a settled matter in Catholic doctrine.

So is the nature of marriage as the stable union of a man and a woman. Catholic legislators who support the abortion license are manifestly in dissent and have damaged their communion with the Church. So have legislators who support "gay marriage." Academics eager to demonstrate their fidelity to Catholic social doctrine might point this out – and support the bishops who do.

So Who Is Responsible, Then?

Folks,

Once again Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV continues his train of thought in confronting the liberal progressive clerical rot in the Church, and it is almost without exception (though he doesn't mention it) that these clerics are one and all members of the Demokratik Party, beholden to that party's promise of social justice and the common good while it murders unborn babies and legitimatizes the filth of homosexual sodomy as marriage. Please watch this less than seven minute video by left clicking your mouse cursor on the link below and following the on-screen instructions. Truly my words of criticism pale in comparison.

So Who Is Responsible, Then?

If You Think I Was Harsh Over Defiant Liberal Clergy....

Folks,

If you think that in the posts of this past week I have been harsh over liberal clergy defiant against the Faith once delivered unto the Saints, then you haven't heard anything until first you watch the latest video from Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV where he quotes St. Catherine of Siena as she describes such individuals as "...not men but devils incarnate, blinded by their disordered love of the rottenness of their own bodies."

A Mother's Death

It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of those Catholic clergy in the United States to whom St. Catherine's statement would apply are liberal, progressive Demokrats. I shall now be accused of being partisan for having written that, but who is really partisan here? Me for believing in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and for supporting the US Constitution Party Platform as being the closest to authentic Church teaching? Or liberal progressive clergy full of the Demokratik Party's false gospel of social justice, the common good and peace at any price, "...blinded by their disordered love of the rottenness of their own bodies?"

Obamanomics

Folks,

As Michael Voris pointed out yesterday at Real Catholic TV, Obama's economic plan is nothing other than the financing of murder and sexual immorality as the following five minute video explains:

Obamanomics

Mr. Voris states in part:

The US economy is in a much greater crisis than just money. There's a moral debt that's even more staggering than 15 trillion dollars.

I now have to stop thinking about this godless man of depravity, idolatry and immorality. It's simply too much negativity for one day.

The End of America

Folks,

Once again Michael Voris of Real Catholic TV is right on target with his latest video, "The End of America."

I see otherwise very intelligent people in science and engineering fields like Rod Adams at Atomic Insights describe themselves as "being a proud liberal who proudly supports public education, comes from a family of union school teachers, appreciates the value of being covered by a single payer medical plan and voted for President Obama." That statement was given in the post Strange Feeling – I Even Never Liked the Yucca Mountain Project at Atomic Insights where for the past week Mr. Adams has been decrying the liberal antics of Gregory Jackzo whom the President that Mr. Adams proudly voted for appointed into a position of authority now being used against the very source of energy that Mr. Adams touts as mankind's salvation. Such double-think convinces me more than ever that America is doomed.

Here is the situation. Barak Hussein Obama is a murderer of unborn babies and a sanctifier of homosexual filth. With his health care plan that aborts unborn babies and euthanizes the elderly and terminally ill, and his other myriad reckless economic measures (none of which has helped the nuclear industry one iota), this godless President of iniquity and depravity has raised more havoc with the American economy than any of our enemies could possibly have done. And his apathy if not antipathy towards the nuclear industry is self-evident in his appointment of an anti-nuclear activist to the position of NRC Chairmanship. It is this activist who used to work for Senator Harry Reid against the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository and for Representative Ed Markey against the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Yet Obama is still loved and adored by scientists and engineers like Mr. Adams. George Orwell would well recognize this double-speak and double-think mindset. Now I am not judging Mr. Adams because none of us know the state of his soul, yet well do such people confirm what Isaiah 6:9-10 states:

Go and say to this people: Listen carefully, but you shall not understand! Look intently, but you shall know nothing! You are to make the heart of this people sluggish, to dull their ears and close their eyes; Else their eyes will see, their ears hear, their heart understand, and they will turn and be healed.

St. Paul describes these people quite accurately in 2nd Timothy 3:7:

Always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

When a nation is controlled by such people filled with their prideful knowledge, then that nation is doomed. Such a nation inevitably succumbs to hubris and arrogance. It took Rome a millennium. Obviously God will not stand for liberal sexual filth and baby-murdering indefinitely. But there is a way out - 2nd Chronicles 7:14:

If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Yet arrogant little men full of themselves and their sense of intellectual prowess would rather send babies to the surgeon's knife than to repent. God has a way of dealing with these little miscreants: He had King Manasseh (who did exactly what Obama does) dragged into captivity by a hook through his nose. That may happen to America's wicked man of idolatry in the Oval Office if he doesn't soon repent. Thus, Mr. Voris would be proven right: the end of America draws nigh. "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Galatians 6:7

Buckle up, folks. Times are getting interesting. Sadly, though, the liberals won't quit till they martyr many Christians. But we know the end of the story. Satan and his legions of doom are sent to hell to burn forever and ever, and Jesus Christ - that great Rider on the white horse of Revelation 19:11-16 - reigns supreme. There will be no more liberalism, no more progressivism, and no more demokracy - two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner, which in our case is the corpses of unborn babies, 60 million since Roe v Wade in 1973.