Conversation with a Non-Catholic

Questioner:  You know, when you pray to Mary you are introducing a mediator between God and man and that goes against God  because He said that “there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”

An adequate reply:  If that’s the way you feel then don’t you ever, ever ask me to pray for you ever again.  You see, the minute you ask me to pray for you in your time of need you are putting me between you and our one mediator, Jesus Christ.

What we Catholics are doing when praying to Mary is to ask her to pray to Jesus on our behalf in the same way as you would ask me to pray for you on your behalf.  When Paul spoke of the one mediator he introduced the subject by stating that it was good for us to pray for one another (1 Tim 2:1-5).  It is good for one member of the Body of Christ to pray for the well-being of another member of the Body of Christ and since not even (physical) death can separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ (Rom 8:38-39) then even those members of the Body who have physically died are alive and well in heaven because Jesus tells us directly that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jabob is a God of the living implying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive(Matt 22:32).  And because death will not separate us from the Body of Christ means that those who have died in friendship with God are not only alive but that they are STILL members of the Body of Christ.
Questioner: But they’re dead.  They can’t hear your prayers.

Reply: What would be the point of asking for intercessory prayers if the people we are asking are not aware of us or of our prayers?  Well we can find that they ARE aware of us in Heb 12:1 where it says: Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”  Or in Luke 15:18 where Luke tells us that their is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
We can see that the saints in heaven are not only alive just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive but that they are indeed aware of what is happening here on earth.

And so ‘dead’ saints are alive in heaven, aware of what is happening on earth and can pray for our well-being just as we can pray for the well-being of others.
God Bless

Canon Revisited

At BeggarsAll another posting on the Canon of Sacred Scripture has been published.  Overall it seems a bit of a chastisement against a Protestant pastor who had the courage to state "the Bible didn't exist until around 300 - 400 AD".  "for 300 years there was no Bible" and "they had no New Testament for really, 400 years."   
Please note the facts:
  1. The Bible did not exist until around 300-400 AD
  2. They had no New Testament for really, 400 years
Both statements are true!  Actually, there were "canon lists" (several varying ones) for the first 400 years - but there was no "Bible," as we know it today, until about 405 AD.  It was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 AD, but not completed until about 405 AD (the Gospels were completed and presented to the pope in 384 AD). 

Why is this such a difficult concept for Protestants to take?  How can they deny the documented process the canon went through before it was finalized in the late 4th century?  Well I can answer for the "why" part, it is because it undermines the concept of sola scriptura.  

When Protestants separated from the one authority which Jesus Christ established and built for His people, they needed to create a new authority, and thus was born the slogan theology of sola scriptura (along with four "other solas").  The terminology itself is virtually unheard of until the 16th century, which this fact alone should cause concern for its adherents.  When the primary language of the West (where the concept of the Five Solas is invented) is Latin why is this allegedly foundational teaching (of sola scriptura, which is Latin) so foreign, even unheard of?

It is time for our separated brethren to come home to the one,  holy, Catholic and apostolic Church which Jesus Christ built (Matthew 16:18).  After all is said and done it is the desire of God that we be one, just as the Father and the Son are one John 17:21).

Addendum - Comments to the original post on BeggarsAll:

"Be Careful the way you communicate the issue of the canon in the early church"
1 – 9 of 9

Scott Windsor, Sr. said...
The fact that there was no "Bible" prior to the 4th-5th century is quite true. It is also true that all the books which comprise that which would be declared to be "The Bible" were all written prior to 96AD. That some books were widely read in the early churches MAY be true, but the fact is that there were few copies available in the first 300 years of the Catholic Church and not because they were forbidden, but because all copies would have been hand-written. There is no doubt that many of the books are rightly declared as being part of the Canon of Sacred Scripture in the earliest of canon lists - but likewise several books were included in these lists which eventually were not included while others were excluded but eventually made it into the official canon.
Should pastors be careful in how they describe the early canons? Yes, I would agree with that! They should also be honest about how the canon developed and was not 100% accepted.
7:31 PM, July 26, 2014
Ken said...
Basically I agree, if there is enough time to make clear that the individual books were already canon when written, because they are "God-breathed".
But I suppose you are also wanting books like Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Didache, Wisdom of Solomon, and Apocalypse of Peter to be mentioned as possibly considered by some (Muration Canon and Codex Siniaticus) as "canon" also. But it could be argued that Codex Siniaticus is just making use of the space and material, not proof that they thought they were canonical.
4:05 PM, July 28, 2014
Scott Windsor, Sr. said...
And I would agree as well... except for the point of "just making use of space." In the time before the printing press (and we're talking more than 1000 years prior to it) adding to the "space" was much more laborious and thus not a very logical argument. So, while it "could be argued...", such a paradigm is quite unlikely. The more likely is that they appreciated the Shepherd, Barnabus, Didache, etc. and included them because they did preach the Gospel message - but for any number of reasons (and there are a few) the later counterparts decided against their inclusion in the canon.
As for the point about them being "canonical" at the time they were penned, while it is true they were and are God's Word at the time they were penned, it is a bit anachronistic to argue they were canonical prior to the existence of canon lists.
7:38 PM, July 28, 2014
Joey Henry said...
Scott, you have to define what you mean by canon. If canon for you means that there should be a canonical list defined by an ecclesiastical body, then you correct in saying that it is anachronistic to assert the canon prior to the list.
However, the definition of what is a canon and when a book becomes canonical is at issue. For me, the canon is a result of inspiration. When God inspired some books and not all books, he basically created the canon. Thus, the canon exist even if no ecclessiatical body defines it.
7:21 AM, July 31, 2014
Scott Windsor, Sr. said...
I understand what you're saying - but I must stress - words have meanings. A "canon" (in this context) is a LIST or COLLECTION of sacred books which are accepted as genuine. Thus, to say a book or collection of books is "canonical" BEFORE the LIST or COLLECTION is assembled is purely anachronistic. To be "canonical" does not equivocate to being "inspired." In the case of Scripture, those books which were eventually included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture are indeed ALSO inspired (God breathed) and the inclusion into the canon did not make them inspired. They were, indeed, inspired even prior to them being penned (the writer first had the inspiration and THEN put it to paper/papyrus). By the same token, just because something is not in the formal canon does not mean it is not inspired! Many other books are considered worthy to be read and could be considered inspired and inspirational - they just were not part of the official canon.
Back to the point - NONE of the books were "canonical" prior to the establishment of a "canon." In simpler terms, NONE of the books were part of the "list" prior to the "list" being compiled.
Also keep in mind, there were SEVERAL "canons" prior to the 4th-5th century.
Words mean things.
11:04 PM, July 31, 2014
Ken said...
. . . words have meanings. A "canon" (in this context) is a LIST or COLLECTION of sacred books which are accepted as genuine.
Words have meanings, yes. But the original meaning of "canon" was not a list, rather "criterion" / "standard" / "rule" - the meaning of "list of sacred books" came much later.
(the writer first had the inspiration and THEN put it to paper/papyrus).
No, 2 Timothy 3:16 says the writings are God-breathed, not the person. The person was guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), using their own personality, but it was the writings themselves that are God-breathed.
3:25 PM, August 01, 2014

Scott Windsor, Sr. said...
> KT: Words have meanings, yes.
> But the original meaning of
> "canon" was not a list, rather
> "criterion" / "standard" /
> "rule" - the meaning of "list of
> sacred books" came much later.
sw: Without going into the etymological fallacy, the use that we are talking about (as indicated by "in this context") is clearly the use of canon lists as produced (several different ones) in the first 400 years of the Church.
The real underlying point here is that the canon did not determine itself. If the canon were self-determining, there would not have been any debate over it - much less 400(+) years of said debate! No, it was ultimately declared by the Church through the Holy Ghost.
The real reason you do not accept this explanation is that it is quite damning to the concept of sola scriptura because you accept, without exception, the canon of the New Testament as declared by the Catholic Church through the Holy Ghost. <> Scott<<<
1:50 PM, August 03, 2014

Ken said...
Before the word "canon" was used as a list of NT books, it meant "rule", "criterion", "standard" in the explanations of "the rule of faith" or "canon of truth" - in Irenaeus(180-200 AD), Tertullian(190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD) (D. L. Williams, The Free Church and the Early Church, page 17) and was basically organized around the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:18-20; and is basically, the same doctrinal content as what later became the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian and Athanasian Creeds.

This "rule of faith" or "canon of truth" was also called "the tradition", "the faith", "the teaching" (Athanasius, To Serapion, on the Holy Spirit, Epistle 1, 28) or "the preaching" (Irenaeus)

So, you are wrong. The standard, rule, criterion was the doctrinal truths of Christianity (which Protestants agree with because they came from Scripture and were taught to new converts before baptism, and functioned as "the standard" until all the NT books were discerned and discovered and put togehter under one "book cover", so to speak.

So, I did not make an etymological fallacy.

There was no real debate over the four gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, 1 John and 1 Peter.

Clement and Pseudo Barnabas seem to allude to 2 Peter.

Irenaeus, Tertullian - 180-220 AD affirm most of the NT books, both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm the book of Revelation - before those 2 writers, there is just not much extant from the earlier writers; their output was small - Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Papias. What we have of their writings is too small to even quote or allude to very many of the NT documents, though they do allude to and quote from some. Clement, very early, uses Hebrews.

The only debate was over Hebrews, Revelation, James, Jude, 2-3 John, 2 Peter. (mostly Eusebius tells us that there was debate over these books.)

But Revelation (Irenaeus, Tertullian) and Hebrews (Clement) are mentioned and affirmed early. 2 Peter by Clement and Psedo-Barnabas.

The power of the NT documents is self-evident and they eventually won because of their self-evident power and quality as being "God-breathed".
12:52 PM, August 04, 2014
What is the context of this discussion? Beyond etymology, we're talking about canon lists of the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Yes, the word "canon" or "kanon" also has the meaning of a "rule" or "criterion," but in this context we're speaking of the lists which were put together, several of them in the Early Church. So, when we speak of the Canon of Sacred Scripture, these books were not canonical until there was a canon or list to which they belonged. One canon of the Old Testament is the Septuagint or Greek canon, another is the Palestinian or Hebrew canon. Catholics, along with Jesus and the Apostles, used the Greek canon; Protestants and post-Christian Jews adhere to the Palestinian canon. Pre-Christian Jews followed a mix between the Alexandrian (Greek) canon and the Palestinian (Hebrew) canon.

Then there came the New Testament canons. One of the first recorded canon lists was the Marcionian Canon, and while Marcion was declared an heretic, it was not because of his canon - though it was controversial. Irenaeus argued for a 4 book Gospel canon and Origen presented a canon quite similar to the current New Testament canon, except he did not include James, 2 Peter 2nd and 3rd John and he did include the Shepherd of Hermas. I could go on, but the point is which canon list? If any book belonged to any canon, then it was "canonical" per that canon. The final canon of Scripture does not exist until the late 4th century, so per that canon, while many books were not disputed by that time, none were part of that canon until that canon existed.


1:54 AM, August 06, 2014

More to follow? Check back here and/or check on BeggarsAll.

Validity or Sacramentality?

Dr. Edward Peters, Canon Lawyer, wrote a very good - and not very long - article on the difference between validity and sacramentality of marriage especially as it relates to the annulment process.  The two aspects are not to be confused, but they often are.  Dr. Peters writes:
Not only is the sacramentality of a marriage NOT determined in an annulment case, the question of its sacramentality is not even RAISED in the process. The annulment process is about the validity of marriage and only about validity; a successful petition results in a “declaration of nullity”, not in a declaration of non-sacramentality.
All of us Catholics, and especially apologists, should not only be aware of this distinction, but should be prepared to answer to it when false information is presented.  Not all sacramental marriages are valid; not all valid marriages are sacramental.

At any rate, I hope you'll take the time to read Dr. Peters article.


Early Church and the Eucharist

The Early Church and the Eucharist.  Dr. Scott Hahn talks about one of his recent books and takes questions and answers them in a (now recorded) live stream.

BeggersAll - Catholicism and Semi-Pelagianism per Sproul

In a blog comment at BeggarsAll, Ken Temple states:
R. C. Sproul demonstrates the contradiction in Roman Catholic Theology, when it claims it agrees with Augustine against Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians (Provincial Synod of Orange in 529 AD), but later re-affirms Semi-Pelagianism by the decrees of Trent (1545-1563) and then, later, arguably, it approves of even Pelagianism by the condemnation of the Jansenists (roughly, 1638-1713) and the modern Roman Catholic Catechism of 1994.  Sproul calls it an "ambiguity".  Indeed, it is more than that; it is a real contradiction.  It also shows the Roman Catholic Church to be fallible; thus bringing down the whole system of its claim to be infallible.
Embedded Ken has a video with Dr. RC Sproul wherein Sproul makes the statement that the Catholic Church has theological hemophilia, and if you scratch her, she bleeds to death.  That is, since the Catholic Church claims to be infallible, if one can demonstrate a contradiction in infallible teachings - then infallibility is destroyed - "she bleeds to death."  In the video Sproul deals with the matter of Free Will and Original Sin.  

Sproul starts by explaining (briefly) what Pelagianism is and how St. Augustine opposed it.  He also explains what Jansenism is, and how the Catholic Church opposed it.  For a bit more clarity, let's explain those a bit more here:
Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam's sinoriginal sintotal depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).
Jansenism was a Christian theological movement, primarily in France, that emphasized original sin, human depravity, the necessity ofdivine grace, and predestination
St. Augustine opposed Pelagianism in this respect:
These men are such opponents of the grace of God . . . that without it, as they believe, man can do all the commandments of God.

They confess in this way there is given to us divine knowledge whereby ignorance is dispelled, but they deny that love is given to us whereby we may lead a religious life: so that whereas knowledge, which, without love puffeth up, is the gift of God, love itself, which edifieth so that knowledge should not puff up, is not the gift of God. They empty of their meaning the prayers which the Church makes: whether for the unbelieving and those that refused the doctrine of God, that they may return to God; or for the faithful, that faith may be increased in them and that they may persevere therein.

They even go so far as to say that the life of the righteous in this world has no sin, and thus the Church of Christ in this mortal state is so perfected as to be altogether “without spot or wrinkle. ” As if it were not the Church of Christ throughout the world which cries to God, “Forgive us our trespasses.” They also deny that infants, born according to Adam after the flesh, contract by their first [sc. Natural] birth the infection of the ancient death. So they assert that they are born without any bond of original sin: with the result, of course, that there is in them nothing that has to be released at their Second [or New] Birth. The reason why they are baptized is that by their New Birth they be adopted and admitted into the kingdom of God, carried from good to better—not, by that renewal, delivered from any evil of ancient entail. For even if they are not baptized, they promise them eternal life and bliss of a sort, though not within the kingdom of God. Adam also himself, they say, even if he had not sinned, would have undergone bodily death; though, if he so died, it would have been due not to the deserts of his guilt, but to the conditions of his nature. Several other things are charged against them. But these are especially the points on which it may be understood how all, or nearly all, the rest depend.
So in summary, St. Augustine supports that in order for men to fulfill the commandments of God they must have His grace in them; that love (grace) is the gift of God; that the Church of Christ does have blemishes and cries out to God "Forgive us our trespasses;" that Original Sin does exist and we must be regenerated through baptism; and that the sin of Adam indeed brought about his death.  These things the Pelagians denied - and these things the Catholic Church taught and continues to teach (to this day!).

The "critical point" according to Dr. Sproul is that he states man still has the ability to choose evil or good, even after the fall.  He goes to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and while he does not cite the paragraph, I have it here for you:
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
Two things here in answering Dr. Sproul: 
a) The CCC is not an infallible document/book/teaching from the Church - NO catechism is!  
b) Paragraph 1732 is saying that men who are not bound definitively to God can still choose to do good things.  There is nothing wrong with that statement!  It is not saying that such men are doing salvific things, only that they are still free to choose to do good things over doing evil things.  Many "unregenerate" people do many good things - there just is no "good" for them in God's eyes, outside of His grace.

So, even if Paragraph 1732 were in error here (and it is not) it would not be valid ammunition against the Church's teaching (really Christ's teaching, Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18) because NO catechism has ever been promulgated as an infallible document.  Again, there is no contradiction between what St. Augustine said and what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says - if anything, the CCC is saying that when one binds himself to God that his will is no longer "free" - that he is now bound to do good, and the choice to do evil would separate him from the love (grace) of God.  This is consistent Catholic teaching throughout the ages.

I have one more thing for Dr. Sproul and Mr. Temple in this regard...

John 6 and Revisited

On the blog a person who uses the pseudonym of "TurretinFan" (hereafter "TF") posted a blog against the Catholic belief in the Eucharist truly being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.  Since one has to be registered at (and I can see no way to do that there) to post comments, I am posting my reply here.

> TF: Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are
> just taking Jesus “literally” when they interpret “this
> is my body” to mean that what was in Jesus’ hands was
> not bread but his physical body [FN1].

sw: No, we don't "try" to claim that, we do claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior.

> TF: Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem
> with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the
> first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in
> the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and
> in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.
> In John 4:6-15, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman
> at Jacob’s well.  He asks her for water, she objects
> because he’s Jewish, and he responds that she should
> be asking him for water, because the water he offers
> is better than the water from Jacob’s well. She
> misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after
> some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor
> of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus’ comments
> about “never thirst.”

sw: Certainly there is a spiritual message here, but it is also physical.  Those who will "never thirst" will physically never thirst for the spiritual refreshment in the eternal (a physical reality) drink He will give to them.  Eternal life (or death) is and/or will be a physical reality.

> TF: In John 6:26-71, Jesus interacts with a number of
> “disciples” who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the
> loaves that’s reported at the beginning of the chapter.
> Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will
> never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger,
> calling himself the “bread of life” that “came down from
> heaven.” Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better
> than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.

sw: The bread, which is His body, IS better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness!

> TF: Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking
> his blood, but they take him physically and go away in
> disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are
> spirit and life.

sw: Precisely!  His words ARE "spirit and life" (spiritual and literal)!  Just as the story in John 4 relates, there IS a spiritual side to Jesus' words - but there IS a literal side too!  His words are LIFE, and ETERNAL LIFE (which is a physical reality).  To simply stand on a metaphor is to lose the REALITY of eternal life, which Jesus promises to those who partake in His body and blood.  Later, on Holy/Maundy Thursday, He physically provides them with the spiritual food - which IS His body and IS His blood.  We claim, accept and believe our Lord and Savior's words!  Now, did Jesus call out to them, "Hey wait disciples!  I was only speaking in metaphors, come back and hear the explanation!"???  No, He let them walk away, not because they did not believe Him, but because they DID believe Him and would not claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior!

> TF: Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too,

sw: Note, He still doesn't change or explain away the command - rather He further challenges The Twelve.

> TF: but Peter (speaking for the group)

sw: Thank you for recognizing Peter's leadership/spokesperson role.

> TF: says that they will stay with him because they believe
> and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

sw:  Precisely!  And what were those words?  "If do not eat My flesh and drink My blood, then you have NO LIFE in you."  "NO LIFE" is the physical reality of the spiritual truth - their physical eternity will be one of separation from God in death.

> TF: In John 7:37-39, Jesus interacts with those at the
> temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people
> water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking
> about the Spirit as the “rivers of flowing water.”

sw: And did the Holy Ghost NOT come from Him?  Did this NOT really happen?  Was the REAL descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost NOT a real event?  My friends, "spiritual" does NOT mean "not real!"

> TF: These passages illustrate Jesus’ fondness for using
> food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the
> Lord’s table by faith, coming to Him as represented by
> the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do
> so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is
> not the physical elements that provide the benefit we
> receive, it is the Spirit.

sw: We approach His table in TRUE Faith when we claim, accept and believe our Lord and Savior's words!  That which we see/perceive as bread, in reality IS His body!  That which we see/perceive as wine, in reality IS His blood!  He did not command us to participate in a metaphor, no, He commanded we eat His flesh and drink His blood, and then He provides the means to REALLY do just that!  We claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior.

> TF: Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:
> (Matthew 15:17)
> Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and
> relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our
> spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

sw: The section TF refers to is critical of the pharisees violation of God's Law.  The reference is to the Corban/Korban/Qorban Rule - wherein "the law" allowed for someone to give to the temple that which they should have given in support of their parents and "justify" the crime against their parents because it was given to the temple.  The challenge to Jesus was over the fact that the Apostles did not wash their hands before eating bread, and Jesus said that it was not unwashed hands which corrupts the man - but an unclean heart.

> TF: Isaiah 44:3; Psalm 105:41; Isaiah 48:21; Psalm 78:20;
> 1 Corinthians 10:4
> The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual
> blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the
> spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock,
> we trust in Him.

sw: Interesting.  While the passages, for the most part, speak of spiritual truth - they also speak to a physical reality.  Psalm 78:20 actually recalls a physical reality in the striking of the rock - and challenges that if He can provide water from a rock, can He not provide flesh for His people?  Interesting that TF would select this passage which argues FOR the Catholic position!


> TF: Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic
> position is particularly absurd in that it takes “this
> is my body” as implying that the bread ceases to be
> bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity
> of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that “this is my
> blood” implies exactly the same thing about the
> contents of the cup.  That’s quite far from taking the
> words literally, in which the bread would just be the
> body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

sw: And how does one separate the soul and divinity from the body and the blood?  Oh ye of little faith.

Pope Misquoted?

In a recent MSN article it is reported that two percent of Catholic priests "are" pedophiles.  
But the Vatican issued a statement saying some parts of a long article in the left-leaning La Repubblica were not accurate, including one that quoted the pope as saying that there were cardinals among the abusers.
The article was a reconstruction of an hour-long conversation between the pope and the newspaper's founder, Eugenio Scalfari, an atheist who has written about several past encounters with the pope.
It would appear the allegation is actually "in the Catholic Church" and is not a statistic restricted to Catholic priests.  Also in the article it says:
The pope was quoted as saying that, while most paedophilia took place in family situations, "even we have this leprosy in our house".
Note, "most paedophilia took place in family situations" - this would not be related to priests.  So the number of two percent relates to ALL cases, most of which are "family situations" so the number of priests involved would be much smaller - AND - the Vatican also has a zero tolerance for this. Also in the MSN article the Pope is reported as saying:
He vowed zero tolerance for abusers and said bishops would be held accountable if they covered up crimes by priests in their diocese.
So, if there is "zero tolerance" there would not be any known and "active" priests involved.
We need to be careful about what we read and especially about what we might repeat.

Sola Scriptura Visited and Defeated Again

For this article the topic is back to sola scriptura - the false notion that Scripture Alone is the sole infallible authority which God has left His Church.  Of course I say it is a false notion for Scripture itself reveals to us ANOTHER INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY in fact TWO!  (Matt. 16:18-19 and Matt. 18:18). There is absolutely no way our Protestant apologist friends "win" this debate - but the Good Lord knows they have and continue to try.  

I was drawn back into this discussion by a blog article written by Ken Temple here: wherein he directs us to another blog he writes on here: which has a Dividing Line (hereafter "DL") program was embedded in the blog.  The DL program was with James White with Dr. Michael Kruger on the phone.  White and Kruger are responding to a phone call into the Catholic Answers (hereafter "CA") radio show hosted by Patrick Coffin with guest Fr. Joseph Fessio.  That radio program can be listened to or downloaded here: and the DL show can also be found here:
Mr. Temple "requires" that one demonstrate that they have listened to the entire DL program before commenting.  Well, the program is an hour and twenty-five minutes long and a "response" in the combox at Beggars All and/or Temple's other blog would a) be hard to fit into such a combox reply and b) may not ever make it past the moderation stage at either blog (I am assuming since I am responding to articles written back in May, being two months ago, will now be subjected to moderation before posting).  So the most appropriate place for me to respond is on the CathApol Blog (here).  I will post notice on both of the other blogs announcing this article.  It should be rather obvious to Mr. Temple that I have listened to the entire Youtube response to the CA phone call.  So, with that, I will jump into the video response posted by White.

White:  "Canon is an artifact of inspiration." He explains that there is a canon of books he (James White) has written, and those books became a part of that "canon" as soon as they were written.  Thus he (and Kruger) explain that the books of Scripture were part of that canon of Scripture as soon as the ink dried on the page.  White then goes on to say that Roman apologists challenge "How do we know what God has determined (to be canon) becomes the issue at that point."  White is right in that question - but he does not answer it and goes on to deal with a phone call to the CA program, which I applaud him for posting the whole call without interruption at the beginning of this DL program.  He and Kruger agree that the answer to this will come about in their response to the phone call.

My response to this "artifact of inspiration" argument is this... such an argument still does not answer how we got to the point of accepting and recognizing the canonical property of a given book so that Christians throughout the world can have surety that these books do belong to the canon (collection) of books which are the inspired Word of God.  I would concede that from their inspiration and recording these 27 books are part of the canon - but again, how do we KNOW this?  Many books claim to be of apostolic origin, and this still does not get around the fact that in the Early (Catholic) Church the canon was not firmly established for nearly 400 years.  Yes, many of the books were commonly accepted but some which made the "final cut" were not part of earlier canons and some which were part of those earlier canons were not included in the final declaration of the canon.  These are indisputable facts which neither White nor Kruger could possibly debate or deny. 

The first claim they deal with in the phone call is the statement that there was no unit or single book to call the Bible or Scripture until about the fourth century.  Kruger starts out misstating the CA response stating they claimed there was no New Testament prior to the fourth century, which is not what was said!  Catholic apologists do not deny that Scripture existed prior to the fourth century, the wholly historic claim is that we do not claim there was a single agreed upon canon prior to the fourth century. Kruger goes on to agree that there was no officially declared or ruled upon canon but goes on to say there was a lot of agreement upon the books which eventually were "declared" canonical.  He goes on to say "to say there was no New Testament prior to that time makes it sound like things were in utter chaos" - and again, the statement of "there is no New Testament prior to that time" really states, truthfully, that there was no New Testament AS WE KNOW IT TODAY prior to that time.  Were their similar versions of the New Testament as we know it today prior to the fourth century?  Yes, but the point is there were variations of it and it was not solidified until the later fourth century and into the fifth.

Next, they digress into discussing post Vatican II scholarship being more liberal, and perhaps that liberal mindset is finding its way into Catholic apologetics.  White expresses a perceived irony that in his experience most Catholic apologists are quite a bit more conservative in their approach and mindset than the "less than conservative view of bibliology from the academy (at Rome)."  Regardless, they went off topic and so am I now, so getting back...

White: "This is the key mechanism by which they (Catholic apologists) establish the concept of the authority of the papacy."  Kruger chimes in and agrees and states that if it can be shown that as early as the second century there was agreement on the core books of the New Testament it shows that somehow the people knew what the canon of Sacred Scripture was even before the Church officially declared it in the late fourth century and into the fifth century.  White jumps back in and states "they cannot allow for coming to that sort of conclusion without a functioning papacy" and goes on to posit "even they (Catholic apologists) recognize that there was no functioning papacy at that time."  I do not know where White gets his information, other than possibly from this alleged "liberal bibliological academy" from Rome.  No respected Catholic apologist I know of concedes this point to him or anyone else for that matter!  The papacy began and functioned with St. Peter being thrust there by Christ Himself; but now I digress.  The fact is this particular point has little to do with the papacy, as it was a series of conciliar declarations by which the final determination of the canon came about more in line with Matthew 18:18 than 16:18-19.

A passing remark made by Kruger should not go unnoticed here.  He makes the comment that the next thing they (at CA) get into is the mistake of bishops mentioning bishops "and there weren't really any."  Wow!  Really?  The office of the bishop is mentioned in Scripture.  In Acts 1 it is Judas' office, or "bishoprick" which needs to be filled!  To make a claim that there were no bishops, even in just a passing comment, cannot go unnoticed, and it hasn't.  Kruger's claim here is just plain ludicrous and anti-scriptural.

White then tells a story wherein he brings up where he allegedly developed "The White Question."  White asked this question of Gerry Matatics and allegedly "it got very quiet" afterward.  That question is, "How did the believing Jewish person know that 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture fifty years before Christ?"  Well first off, I know this was not just "something out of the blue" as White claims in this DL show, for I have been asked that very question, perhaps by White himself, on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) many, many years ago!  White also claims he's never heard a good answer for that - well, if he did not hear my answer before, let me put it out there again now.  The reality is that for the Jewish people the matter of a "canon" was not nearly as forefront as it is for the modern Christian (Catholic or Protestant).  The fact is they didn't have a "canon" per se, but they did have a group of books which had been handed down to them by the means of Sacred Tradition which were accepted by the Jewish person 50 years before Christ.  That being said, more proof that the Jews did not have a firmly established canon (and in speaking with an Orthodox Jew I was told that they, to this day, do not really embrace a concept of "canon" in the same sense that we, Christians, do) if we were to ask "The White Question" to a believing Jewish person 50 years before Christ, a lot might weigh in WHERE that Jewish person lived!  If it were a Jewish person living in Alexandria, and say that we were asking about the Book of Baruch or one of the books of Maccabees, he would accept those books as Scripture, whereas a Palestinian Jew might reject those books as such - IF (again) they had a concept of "canon" like Christians have, and they don't. So, White's question is built on a faulty premise - but even if we accept the premise - WHERE that Jewish person lived would factor in because some Jews accepted the Alexandrian Canon while others accepted the Palestinian Canon (and again, these "canon" names are given by Christians discussing the topic more so than Jews).  That is about as good an answer as one can expect from the poorly framed "White Question."

Back to the CA call...  Fr. Fessio is talking about the books of the New Testament as opposed to books like the Gospel of Peter and other Gnostic works, to which Kruger rightly responds that such books weren't written until more than 100 years later and the first Christians would not be disputing/discussing these books because they weren't even penned yet.  A better example would have been to use the Epistles of Pope St. Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Didache or the Epistle of Barnabas which WERE part of several of the early canons, but were excluded from the final canon.  Or how about several books, five of them actually, which were excluded from different early canons but included in the final canon (those books are: 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation).  It would be nice to hear White and/or Kruger respond to actual examples.  While I'm sure they can come up with all sorts of rationalizations as to why those books were excluded or included - they cannot get around the FACT that these earlier and varying canons existed AND that the canon question would not be firmly resolved until the later fourth century in several conciliar decisions from various councils (including Rome) and the compilation of the Vulgate under direct papal request, in the early fifth century.  EVERY officially approved Catholic Bible from that point forward uses the canon per St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate.  Another interesting and valid point here is that prior to St. Jerome's Vulgate, there was NO SUCH THING as a "Bible" with all the books put into one "book" (which is literally what "bible" means).  While there were varying canon LISTS - there was no "Bible" until the Vulgate.

Kruger states that we don't have any evidence that the canon was declared by any official council and that the acceptance of the canon was more "organic" by the Early Church than it was "officially declared."  I could not believe my ears in hearing this!  Certainly Kruger is aware of the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome in the late fourth century and the commissioning of the Vulgate in the early fifth century.  Prior to the fourth century the various canon lists did not just "organically" appear - but came to us from various leaders/fathers of the Early Church - who penned them and declared them to be canonical for their jurisdictions.  To say there is no evidence of such declarations is an out and out lie.  Sorry Dr. Kruger, but I have to call them as I see them.  

Backtracking a bit, Kruger uses an example of going up to a second century Christian and asking them why they chose Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the Gospels he stated "he would look at you as if you had two heads" and continues, "those were the books handed down to us, he would say."  So Kruger picks 4 books which were never disputed and included in ALL the early canon lists!  Still, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the FACT that we did have several VARYING CANON LISTS!  Kruger even repeats that "there is nothing in the fourth to fifth century range that can accommodate their need for an official declaration."  He claims that those councils were not "declaring" something new, but simply stating that which was always believed by the Early Church and was handed to them.  Sorry again, Dr. Kruger, but that is simply not true!  Stop avoiding the 800 pound gorilla!  Those earlier and varying canons did exist and the councils of the fourth century along with the commissioning of the Vulgate in the early fifth century were indeed in response to that 800 pound gorilla (the varying canon lists) and did serve to close the canon debate for faithful Christians.  Of course, about 1000 years later some unfaithful Christians reopened the discussion which led THE Church to pronounce, infallibly, at the Council of Trent the restatement of the official canon and even NAMED the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome as THE canon for faithful Christians to accept.

After about 10 minutes of White and Kruger preaching to their own choir (White's words), White asks a question, "How is anyone supposed to grasp hold of this stuff when you can pick up even the standard works, the Gonzales and the Shaffs and things like that and you're going to find different understandings even in the secondary sources, let alone when you go to the primary sources and the Roman Catholic says 'See, when you do that you're never going to come to an answer, you need to have an authority that can even interpret the tradition as well as being an authority which can interpret the Scripture; and so without infallibility you're just going to be left with all this uncertainty.'"  White pauses and Kruger jumps in, "That is the argument that keeps going on, that you cannot have authority without external validation."  Then comes the standard attempt to pigeon hole the Catholic into a circular argument... the statement that Scripture (and tradition) need an external authority to validate them, but when we take it a step backward and ask where does the Church get its validation, from which external authority it points back to Scripture - and that the Church is self-validating.  The problem White and Kruger have here is that THEY believe Scripture is self validating and we find IN SCRIPTURE the validation of the Church - so by THEIR STANDARD the Church IS validated.  The point that is missed here is that the Church does not validate or give authority to the Word of God, it simply validates which books ARE the Word of God so that Christians can have confidence in reading them as such.  As they claimed at the beginning of this discussion, a point we do not dispute, that these books were part of the canon as soon as they were penned - the point is the process of narrowing down the canon list to THE canon we have today.

Kruger goes on to say, "What you really have is sola ecclesia(m) as opposed to sola scriptura."  White chimes in and says, "Believe me, they really don't like it when I use that terminology, sola ecclesia(m).  But, but, but every time they argue against that, they prove my point because it is rather simple, you ask them 'Who has the authority to determine the extent of Scripture?'  The Church does.  'Who has the authority to infallibly interpret the content of Scripture?'  The Church does.  'Then who has the authority to determine what is and what isn't Sacred Tradition?' The Church.  'And who has the authority to infallibly interpret the Tradition?'  And, it's the Church.  How you can have the Church under the authority of two things which she alone can determine the extent of and she alone can interpret, I can't begin to understand and I don't think anyone else can."  Kruger interjects, "No, I don't either."  Well, I'm not sure who these other unnamed Catholic apologists are - but I for one have never shied away from sola ecclesiam, and I have actually used the terminology in some of my early debates with White.  Sola ecclesiam is not something we need to argue against!  The ecclesiam, or Church, encompasses Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition - the Church does not exist without both for it IS both!  The ecclesiam is the apostolic succession of the bishops, it is the bishops gathered together in ecumenical council, it is the pope and it is all of us, faithful Christians who have been validly baptized into it and adhere to it as THE ecclesiam established by Christ to which He promised He would remain with that Church until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20).  To belong to and profess ANOTHER ecclesiam is to deny Christ and the Church He built.  So yes, sola ecclesiam is not something for us to be ashamed of - we need to embrace it for it is THE authority Jesus left His People.  The fact is Scripture has authority, but it is not alone.  Sacred Tradition has authority, but it is not alone.  The little "sola slogans" of the sixteenth century, especially sola scriptura and sola fide are meaningless, devoid of scriptural foundation and even oppose Scripture for Scripture comes right out and denies both of these in no uncertain terms!  (James 2:24 and Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18).

Next White states, "Let me become the Roman Catholic apologist here and ask you (Dr. Kruger) to flesh out a couple of the statements which you have specifically made.  You said that there just isn't anything in this early period that would provide the Church with the foundation of the claims that she is making.  So, are you saying that... how did someone in the days of, let's just use Tertullian, as an example, how did he know what Scripture was and what Scripture was not if he wasn't appealing to an ecclesiastical authority as the foundation of his knowledge?  Kruger responds, "Yah, well, several ways, and this does get into a trifold way in my book, as you know.  Several ways in which an early Christian was to know if a book was to be included as Scripture were:
  1. It's apostolic origin.  I mean it's clear when we're referring to early patristic writers, they weren't appealing to infallible church declarations.  Instead, on the contrary, their basis for receiving one book and not another was apostolic origins.  When they understood a book to be apostolic then they understood that book to be something they should receive as authoritative Scripture.  So one way to know was the apostolic origin of the book.  That seems to be playing a major role in the Early Church Fathers as opposed to infallible Church declarations.
  2. The second way in which people seemed to know which books was about usage.  Or, another way to say it was the general consensus and as I said earlier it is entirely valid to look at general consensus.  In other words look how the Church, filled with the Holy Spirit is responding to books and the consensus they developed around books is a great indicator of canonicity. 
  3. The third way I get into in my book, of course Roman Catholic friends just really get upset with me about is this idea of books bearing within themselves marks of their own divine origin.  Protestants refer to this as the self-authentication of Scripture.  Calvin talked about it extensively, the fact that there are indicators or divine marks or qualities or characteristics of these books which set them apart as from God.  
(Kruger continues...) Now we can dive into the full details of those but historically that's not only what Protestants believe, not only what Calvin and the Reformers articulated, but I shared in my book, that's what the Early Church Fathers believed.  In fact Origen himself, as representative of many statements in this regard, is very clear that when you read these books you recognize they are from God.  You don't need all these external things, you have the books themselves.  You add up the apostolic origins, the consensus of the Church and internal characteristics of the books themselves - those three things work in tandem, I think provide excellent sort of epistemological grounds for canon and nowhere in the mix is there infallible Church papal declarations."

Well, where to begin?!  Kruger's "trifold" list is so punctuated with errors - let's just start at the beginning.  Many books claimed apostolic origin - if that were significant, they would have trouble dismissing the Gnostic writings attributed to Apostles.  Secondly here - Mark and Luke were not Apostles!  Were their books approved by Apostles? No doubt!  But if apostolic origin is a requirement, we must cast out two of the Gospels from step one!  Consensus?  Sorry, if that were an indicator then you could not reject books like Clement's epistles, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Didache, etc. for in the earliest of canons, these books were widely accepted.  Then we come to the five books mentioned earlier - those books were commonly excluded from many of the earlier canons - if this truly were a principle in determining canonicity, we'd have to reject those five books too.  Dr. Kruger, your canon is down to 20 books now.  Then we come to the nonsensical "self-determination" concept.  Most of the Gnostic writings as well as other valid writings have the same or similar "self-determination" characteristics - so we've dropped down to 20 books, but now we expand well beyond the established canon into an unknown.  

An example of Marcion is made- who allegedly butchered the canon of Sacred Scripture so much that it became a sounding board for Christian writers, that if you wrote against Marcion, you were establishing yourself as a truly orthodox Christian writer.  The facts are Marcion was a heretic, not for his canon selection, but for his denial of the Old Testament God as the same God of the New Testament.  His Old Testament god was seen as something less than the all forgiving God of the New Testament and it was for his teachings along those lines which got him condemned.  Next fact, yes he did produce one of the earliest - if not the earliest - canons of Sacred Scripture of the New Testament.  Yes, the Early Church did respond to his canon with more complete lists but he was excommunicated for his teachings about God more so than an incomplete canon.  In fact, some sources credit him with being responsible for the Church putting out official canons and eventually THE canon of Sacred Scripture.

As White and Kruger are wrapping up this DL show White makes a plea to Kruger to explain again something which he feels is so paramount for the believer to accept - something which came to him as he was hiking a mountain and listening to one of Dr. Kruger's books - and that is the self-authentication of Scripture.  Together they build up this huge straw man, that since Scripture is about God and is God Himself speaking through the Scripture that these books are unique in that they reveal God to those who are seeking God.  As such, these books have the characteristic of being able to self-authenticate by their very nature of coming from God to begin with.  This is all a straw man because there is nothing to support such a grandiose view.  Now I grant you, Scripture is a grandiose collection of books - but as we have discussed in this response article, no book or collection of books self-authenticate.  Based upon that logic, how does one say the Book of Mormon is not Scripture?  It self-authenticates too!  In fact, the "story" behind the Book of Mormon tells us of golden plates which came down from Heaven and the special glasses which Joseph Smith was given to read and interpret the plates... if self-authentication is the key, then White and Kruger have a real problem with NOT including the Book of Mormon in the Canon of Sacred Scripture!

The simple fact of the matter in determining the canon IS historically known.  In the first four centuries of the Church the canon varied - this is indisputable, after the fourth century and especially with the commissioning of the Latin Vulgate in the fifth century - the canon debate was settled for all faithful Christians, that is until some unfaithful Christians about 1000 years later who left THE Church behind had to establish a NEW authority, and in doing so they came up with a DIFFERENT GOSPEL (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal 1:8-9) than what they had received and came up with the novel, and previously unheard of, concept of sola scriptura.  

This brings us back to the point that was asked by Patrick Coffin - a point which White and Kruger completely glossed over - and that is, "Where is sola scriptura taught in Scripture?"  One would think that such a foundational teaching would be quite clearly delineated by Scripture itself, but Scripture is silent on this.  Now consider as well that the words "sola scriptura" are Latin, and Latin was the primary language of the Church from the fourth century onward, and remains to this day as the official language of the Church.  One would THINK that such a foundational teaching, especially if not blatantly clear from Scripture itself, would be repeated over and over again throughout the Early Church Fathers - yet it is virtually unheard of until some fifteen centuries later!  Even the semi-objective reader must accept this truth for if what I'm saying is false, then the Early Church Fathers, especially the Latin Fathers, used this terminology over and over again and folks like White and Kruger would be rubbing my nose in it, over and over again - yet there is silence and why?  Because it is truly an unheard of teaching until about the time of the sixteenth century.

My hope and prayer is not to condemn folks like White and Kruger - but to bring them to the fullness of the Faith that they might become as strong and forceful FOR the Church as they are in opposing it today.  May the Holy Ghost grant them the faith necessary to overcome the pride and the different gospel they have been taught and continue to teach themselves.


Pause For Peace

Under hashtag #pauseforpeace 60 seconds of prayer is being promoted during the FIFA World Cup later today.

Inequality is the Root of Social Evil

A Tweet from Pope Francis recently came to my attention...

Really?  There is no and can be no true "equality" in society.  As Jesus Himself said, "The poor will always be among you..." (Matt. 26:11).  This was said in a context of the disciples criticizing the use of expensive oils on Jesus when they could have been sold and the money given to the poor. 


The Odd Couple Popes

Too funny to not share!

Clearing up Confusion

What is a "Parable"?

Definition: "At its simplest a parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought." (C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom , New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961, p. 5)

We might think that Jesus spoke in parables to make it easier for people to understand his message. According to the Gospels, however, he surprisingly does NOT expect everyone to understand them! This is clearly expressed in Matthew 13:10-17:

10 Then the disciples came and asked him, "Why do you speak to them [the crowds] in parables?"
11 He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' (cf. Isa 6:9-10)

There were many times when His listeners didn’t understand Jesus’ sayings as we can plainly see in this particular parable but also in many instances in the Gospel writings.  And every time they didn’t understand, Jesus explained further to help clarify His message to all or to the Apostles alone.  For example, Jesus makes sure the Apostles understood His parable before moving on to the next when He asked them if they understood the parable of the Net.  He asked: 51 Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.  “Yes,” they replied.”

 In instances when they didn’t understand, the Apostles asked Him to elaborate, to explain as we see in Matt 13 verse 36 where the Apostles ask: “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”  He then goes on to explain the parable further.

We can easily show many instances where Jesus spoke in parables in terms that confused His listeners but in every case He either continued to explain Himself until they understood or the Apostles went to Jesus and asked Him to explain His saying further.

This is why we must reject the Protestant argument that Jesus would allow His listeners to turn away from Him simply because they misunderstood His teaching on His Flesh being the Bread of Life in Chapter 6 of John’s Gospel.  That we must eat His flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life was not a parable, metaphor or simply symbolic language because this would mean that  Jesus would have allowed His listeners to turn away from Him on a misunderstanding which would make Him a terrible teacher, something He never did in any other time during His ministry.  It would mean that in this one instance when His listeners didn’t understand would be allowed to leave without a word of explanation to them or His Apostles.  No, Jesus spoke literally when He said that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life.

God Bless

FIFA World Cup and Two Popes

OK, if you haven't heard it yet... here it is... 2014 sees two popes, one from Germany and one from Argentina - and the World Cup of Soccer pits Germany against Argentina in the championship game this coming Sunday, July 13, 2014.  So which team does one cheer for?  

Court Ruling Against the Seal of the Confessional

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League comments on a ruling made by the Supreme Court of Louisiana:
In 2008, a fourteen-year-old girl alleges that she told her parish priest that she was being abused by a now-deceased lay member of their parish. The girl alleges the disclosures came during the Sacrament of Confession. Now her parents are suing the priest, and the Diocese of Baton Rouge, for failing to report the alleged abuse. The State’s Supreme Court has ruled that the priest, Fr. Jeff Bayhi, may be compelled to testify as to whether the Confessions took place, and if so, what the contents of any such Confessions were.
Confession is one of the most sacred rites in the Church. The Sacrament is based on a belief that the seal of the confessional is absolute and inviolable. A priest is never permitted to disclose the contents of any Confession, or even allowed to disclose that an individual did seek the Sacrament. A priest who violates that seal suffers automatic excommunication from the Church.
As a result of this ruling Fr. Bayhi may now have to choose between violating his sacred duty as a priest and being excommunicated from the Church, or refusing to testify and risk going to prison. The Diocese said Fr. Bayhi would not testify.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Just as government cannot compel anyone to follow a particular religion, it likewise cannot prevent anyone from exercising the tenets of  his faith. By deciding that Fr. Bayhi must choose between his faith and his freedom, the Louisiana Supreme Court has endangered the religious liberty of all Americans.
The Catholic League supports Fr. Bayhi and the Diocese of Baton Rouge in their quest for a reversal of this ruling, and a recognition that clergy cannot be forced to violate their faith.

Feast of the Assumption

 The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...