Priestly Porn

I ask those of you who are parents to carefully consider this question: Would you entrust your children to a daycare center that is known to not only employ child abusers to work with children entrusted to their care but to actually nurture and protect such people?

I ask all who read this to carefully consider this question: Would you entrust your hopes for eternity to a shepherd who habitually violates his vows to his church and to his god?

Those in the Roman hierarchy who fashion the rules and exceptions that govern that cult surely are neither ingenuous nor blind to the reality of the corruption and perversion that infects the priestly class. Certainly, this awareness must have been a factor that led them to create ways to make priestly perversions to have virtually no effect on their suitability to continue to perform priestly duties.

I have posted several articles concerning predatory priests who prey upon those they claim to shepherd. The sexual and emotion horrors perpetrated by Roman Catholic priests, nuns and monks against children throughout Canada were detailed in my paper on the Duplessis Orphans. I recalled some of the terrible crimes committed by former rulers of the Catholic cult in a paper titled Would You Buy A Used Car From One Of These Guys. And in another paper called Celibacy and Pedophile Priests I examined how the Roman Catholic princely hierarchy watches over her wayward priests and protects them from the long arm of the law.

For a time following publication of such articles, I receive a lot of email from Catholic apologists and others who deny the truth of what they have read. The writers sometimes go to great lengths to play down the crimes of the Catholic priesthood and are quick to point out that it is the individual priest or nun who violates the laws of God and man. According to their reasoning, that entity known as the Roman Catholic Church continues pure as the driven snow, her soul, if you will, unsullied by the deeds of her priestly class. A convenient, if invalid, response that recalls the words and actions of Pontius Pilate as he attempted to evade responsibility for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 27:24). Just as Pilate could not evade his responsibility by claiming he was not to blame, so cannot the Roman Catholic cult hide from the accusing finger of reality.

Not that the Roman cult does not act against priests when forced to do so. Canon 290 of the Code of Canon Law declares that, while a priest is ordained for life, he can be deprived of his clerical state. The next canon adds that the priest thus chastised is not released from his vow of celibacy.

In worst case situations, the offending priest may be recalled to his mother house, where he will spend the remainder of his days tending the rose garden or working in the library. I suspect many who teach in Catholic seminaries might be priests who have been deprived of their clerical state. I suppose that, to some pervert priests, such punishmentsmight be tantamount to B'rer Rabbit's being thrown into the briar patch.

So, what does the RCC leadership do to protect her billion or so faithful from the sexual appetites of predatory priests? In most cases, I suspect, it does nothing. Oh, when there are complaints, the diocese might move a priestly pervert to another parish or, in some cases, even trade him off to another diocese.

Not all Catholics are blind to priestly perversions. My next door neighbor, for example, has told me that his parish priest prohibits all fund-raising activities in his church. His reason? Every time the archdiocese is sued due to the sexual activities of a predatory priest, the chancery draws down the savings of the parish churches to settle the lawsuit. This priest told his parishioners that he could not in conscience call upon them to pay the financial costs of the sexual sins of Catholic priests.

Some would argue that sexually predatory priests like Rudy Kos are rare. These folks cannot, of course, support their claim from any veriable source. The priestly pervert acts in secret, for the most part, and the very nature of his actions militates hiding them from public scrutiny. One must look elsewhere for information. In the USA, insurance companies do not protect Catholic parishes from liability suits resulting from priestly perversions. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. Ask your parish priest or the Chancery for the name of the insurance company that provides such protection. Bet they can't.

You could go to the Web for information. Make it easy. Choose the Alta Vista search engine and search for "Rudy Kos". You will get pages and pages of URLs for sites detailing not only his sex crimes but those of a lot of other Catholic priests.

The Survivors of Clergy Crimes operate a web site that offers an enormous amount of information on the crimes of Catholic clergy. I challenge anyone who would deny the reality that many of those to whom they look for spiritual guidance are far from holy in their everyday lives to spend time reading in the files of this site.

The Survivors are, or were, Catholic. A Protestant ministry provides more information of priestly crimes. On this site, you can read also some of the attempts by Catholic officials and laymen to discount the truth and the seriousness of charges of priestly perversion.

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the corruption tht seems to be rampant within the ranks of Roman Catholic religious was provided by a Web site and mail list operated by and for homosexual Roman Catholic priests, nuns and laymen. That site was ordered closed by the bishop of the diocese where its founding priest works. Though the site and mail list may now be closed, much of the material, correspondence and photographs they once held were preserved by a ministry operated by Catholic layment and guided by responsible Catholic priests.

Before providing the link to that site, however, I think it important that the interested reader first read another page in order to get an overview of what is to come. When reading under the heading "Maine" on this page, pay special attention to the fact that Father Harris acknowledged that he was the author of an "expletive-filled" sent in response to a communication from a responsible priest.

The text of Harris' email and the email that triggered it are available on the web site operated by a group called Roman Catholic Faithful. When you go there, I think it important to first read "A Few Blunt Words To Catholics" to get a feel for what is coming.

After digesting the information in that opening statement from Catholic to Catholic, the next step is to click on the link to "St. Sebastian's Angels." WARNING! This section is not for the sensitive nor those easily shocked. This is the page with the pictures, emails, articles and dating information provided by actively homosexual CAtholic priests and at least one bishop. Some of the articles and photographs are definitely X-RATED. To their credit, the RCF provide plenty of warnings of what is to come. You will never stumble blindly into pornography. After visiting this site, keep in mind what you saw there as you read again these words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2354. "Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, (c) 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 624)

The Leadership of the Roman cult acknowledge that pornography is a "grave offense." In paragraph 2357, the Catechism defines homosexualilty and, in addressing homosexual acts, declares that "Under no circumstances can they be approved."

So here we have it. The RCC does not approve of pornograpy, homosexuality, violation of vows of celibacy, etc., yet on the other hand, known sexual deiates within the priesthood are sheltered and permitted to continue to shepherd innocents entrusted to their care. How can this be? Why, the Roman hierarchy calls upon its sacrament of Holy Orders to defend the perverts among her religious.

1550. "This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, (c) 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 624)

I call upon the Catholic readers of this article to think upon what you have read when you next attend Mass. As the priest places what you believe to be the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ into your hands or on your tongue, will you wonder where those hands have been?

Catholic Tradition



82. As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.' [DV 9.]--Catechism of the Catholic Church, (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

As Roman Catholic apologists like to point out, the RCC is not guided only by the Sacred Scriptures, but also by Holy Tradition. Like so many other aspects of the Catholic cult, this unwillingness to accept God's Word as sufficient shares many characteristics with those other religions and cults which the Roman church absorbed in order to gain control over their devotees.

In the Book of Exodus, we read the account of Moses' mountaintop encounter with the Lord God Almighty. When Moses came down the mountain with the tablets containing the Decalogue, Ten Commandments, this was the beginning of the process Jews call Matan Torah, the giving of the Torah.

All in all, there are 613 laws in Torah. Why did God write but ten "utterances" on the stone tablets? Rabbis and biblical scholars tell us that the Ten Commandments are but general headings and that each of the other 603 laws can be assigned to one of these ten categories. The laws God provided, if kept in the spirit, were adequate to cover all aspects of community and personal living. God is all-wise. Surely He provided the perfect number of perfectly written rules to protect and guide His chosen people.

Originally, the Law was in the hands of the prophets (nevi'im) and the priests (Levites). This changed under Persian rule, when Ezra returned to the Jewish homeland. From this time on, religious teaching and leadership was in the hands of scholars, who were referred to as scribes (soferim). You know what happens when lawyers or academicians get their hands on anything.

It is not in man's nature, apparently, to leave perfection alone. Priests and scribes began adding to God's perfect collection of laws. It was not plain enough that God commanded against eating blood (Leviticus 17:11); these deep thinkers determined it was necessary to supplement God's law with a complex set of rules for slaughtering animals and preparing food in the "kosher" manner. Over the centuries, hundreds, nay! Thousands, of rules, comments, codicils, interpretations, etc., were added to the growing collecting of oral "tradition" concerning the Law given by God in Torah.

In the rabbinical era, folks began gathering all this multitude of "traditions" into some semblance of order. And thus were born the six orders of the Mishna. Today, Orthodox Jews are guided by Torah and tradition. And here it can get really confusing.

The Gemara is an addition to the Mishna. The gemara do not adhere closely to the text, but offer instead an enormous amount of addition material only loosely connected to the Mishna. They supplement the Mishna with Jewish literature and exposition of Scripture. As such, they are excelient historical references.

Actually, though there is but one Mishna, there are two Gemaras, each developed by rabbis over centuries. The gemara developed in Israel is called the Yerushalmi and the one that came out of Babylon is the Bavli. The gemara are NEVER printed alone, but always with the Mishna. Thus, if you have the Israeli gemara and the Mishna bound together, you have the Yerushalmi Talmud. The combination of Babylonian Gemara and Mishna is known as the Bavri Talmud.

The Talmud, supreme sourcebook of Jewish Law, sometimes is referred to as the Shas. The word Shas is a shortened form of Shisha Sedarim (six orders), which is a reference to the six orders of the Mishna. Actually, there are two distinct versions of the Talmud: the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem) Talmud and the Bavli (Babylonian) Talmud. Of the two, the Bavli Talmud enjoys greater popularity and authority, and it is to this version the generic term Talmud refers.

Orthodox rabbis may devote a lifetime to studying the Talmud, which describes how to apply the laws in Torah to different life situations. Talmud is not a legal code, but it provides the material used to decide all issues of Jewish law (Halakha).

Conservative Rabbis also consider the Halakha as binding, but they do not accept the most recent and strict opinions as absolutely binding. Instead, they use the Talmud as did the rabbis of old, which is also a rarely used option for the Orthodox.

The more liberal Reformed and Reconstructionist Jews don't even teach Talmud in their Hebrew schools, though it still is taught in seminary. They refer to Torah in their research on points of Torah law, but also consider the times and parallels in other societies.

Since the closing of the Talmud, Jews have continued to develop the Law in areas of practical application, though always honoring the opinions of the Talmudic rabbis. Modern rabbis are free to interpret, but never to contradict the findings of those who developed the Talmud.

There is a sharp division between Torah Law and Rabbinic Law. Torah Law is drawn directly from prohibitions in the Written or Oral Torah. Rabbinical Law was developed to provide a buffer to prevent Jews from inadvertantly violating Torah Law. For example, God provided for a penalty to be administered to the loser in a striving between two men: forty lashes — no more. That was the Torah Law. Rabbinical Law provided that such punishments were to be 40-minus-one, so that should a person miscount he would not violate God's law.

Torah Law: Deuteronomy 25:1 -3, "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee." Rabbinical Law: 2 Corinthians 11:24, "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one."

Here is an example of how such oral and written traditions can get all mixed up. It is extracted from the soc.culture.jewish FAQ: Torah and Halachic Authority

"Often, a false distinction is made by uninformed posters between 'Torah' (meaning Written) Law and Oral Law---in normative Judaism, the two stand together in distinction to Rabbinic Law. Example: the Written Law says an eye for an eye'. The Oral Law says (and historical documents from the Second Temple era confirm) that this was _never_ intended literally, but rather means measured and just (monetary) compensation for damages inflicted'. The Rabbinic Law upholds this principle, but might still command a man to forego the monetary damages in certain cases so as not to even come close to transgressing some other Torah prohibition, such as exacting interest on a debt, or causing baseless hatred. The first two are Torah, the last is not. But all are binding on Jews worldwide. (A still lower level of 'law', called minhag, or 'custom', is post-Talmudic and usually has force only within particular communities.)"

Then, there is the Tosafot , which are supplemental commentaries on the Talmud written by various Rabbis. Sometimes, the Gemara will quote a legal source external to the Mishna. This is a citation of a Baraita (external teaching), which can be any authoritative legal material which was not included in the Mishna. Everything in the Tosefta is, by definition, Baraita.

At the end of the Bavli Talmud, there are a number of tractates which address such issues as dying, mourning, engagement, marriage, sex, modesty, self-examination, etc.

And then we come to Midrash, which is a term referring to exegesis, a compilation of the results of exegesis, or to the interpretation of a particular verse or passage to search out the fullness of God's Word. As is to be expected, there are two basic approaches to Midrash. One is that the wording of Scripture was inspired by God and every word is important — even repetitions, apparent errors and peculiar word orders. The other school argues that language is a human thing and subject to all the ordinary flaws of human communication.

All these "authoritative" sources of rules and legislation. All but one of them are the products of man's ingenuity, yet all are considered to have the force of religious law, even the Law given by God Himself, within the community of Judaism. Who can know all these things? What Jew can live his life so well that he never falls into lawbreaking? I would submit that the only Jew ever to live in such a manner was the Jew Jesus of Nazareth. In the days of Temple worship, there was provision in the Law for atoning sacrifices. There has been no Temple, no altar, wherein Jews might sacrifice since the since the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. There is no hope of forgiveness for any Jew outside of Messiah.

As I have shown, I hope. God provided His chosen people a complete compendium of laws which, if followed perfectly in the spirit would have made their living comfortable and assured them of spending eternity with their God. Of course, God knew they would not be able to do that. The Law stands, even today, as given, for it is through the Law that we came to know sin.

Now, what has the RCC done with God's Law? Well, among other things they diluted it, as did the Jews, by declaring tradition to be co-equal with Scripture in determining doctrine. One big difference between the way Jews handle their multiplicity of sources and Rome's way is that any Jewish scholar, or even serious lay student, can find the books of tradition and search them. This is because the sources have been identified, compiled and published.

I have never discovered, nor even heard of an authoritative compilation of what Catholicism calls "Sacred Tradition." I suppose the nearest comparison to the Talmud would be found in the Code of Canon Law and, perhaps, the Catechism of the Catholic Church would approximate the Midrash.

Then, there are all the writings of the Early Church Fathers which, depending upon the needs of the Catholic apologists, may be either authoritative or merely informational. At times, the writings of a particular father can be both authoritative (when they support the RCC position) and only informational (when they oppose the RCC position).

To this growing pile of sometimes authoritative sources of tradition, we might add the writings of the Doctors of the Church, which include some really off-the-wall mystical stuff from such folks as the Little Flower. Popes tend to write a lot and what they write to the whole church is not only authoritative but some are considered infallible declarations of God's will (they claim), unless it suits the needs of some apologist to declare that a particular papal utterance failed to meet the conditions for infallibility. This is so even when what one pope declares infallibly is then countermanded by another, also infallible, pope or some equally infallible church council. So, too, are the rules of the 21 infallible church councils considered infallibly authoritative. And we have the pronouncements of such historical and current RCC agencies as the Inquisition, the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, the Penitentiary, the Curia, etc., all of which have the authority of law within the RCC.

The Roman Catholic church explains the mutability of tradition by declaring there actually are two types of tradition: there is Tradition with a capital 'T' and tradition with a small 'T'

83. "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

"Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

"The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church."--Catechism of the Catholic Church, Op. cit

I love that one phrase, "In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned.. ." Ha!

Enter the Magisterium. This is the mighty Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic church. Ultimately, all religious legislation seems to fall under the control of the Magisterium. The Magisterium is defined as:

"The Church's teaching authority, instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, which seeks to safeguard and explain the truths of the faith. The Magisterium is exercised in two ways: 'extraordinary', when the Pope and ecumenical councils infallibly define a truth of faith or morals that is necessary for one's salvation and that has been constantly taught and held by the Church; 'ordinary,' when the Church infallibly defines truths of the faith: 1) taught universally and without dissent, 2) which must be taught or the Magisterium would be failing in its duty, 3) connected with a grave matter of faith or morals, and 4) which is taught authoritatively. Not everything taught by the Magisterium is done so infallibly; however, the exercise of the Magisterium is faithful to Christ and what He taught.--Peter J.M. Stravinskas, Ed., The Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor, (1993), p.316)

Just how much clout does the Magisterium enjoy? Well, the Magisterium has declared that the Magisterium is the sole agency authorized to interpret the Word of God (CCC, Logia 100). In fact, the Magisterium has declared that the Magisterium is co-equal in authority with the Word of God and Sacred Tradition (Big 'T'). Since the Magisterium has declared the Magisterium to be infallible in such matters, then it must be true. Right?

95. "'It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.'[DV 10 # 3.]--Ibid..

So, for Roman Catholics, all one really needs to know about God's will is what the infallible Magisterium infallibly determines to infallibly declare, since only she is empowered by Christ with the authority to do so (CCC, Logia 88). And what the Magisterium infallibly declares to be the will of God is authoritative, for her declarations are "under the action of the Holy Spirit." Which is just as well, for there is no authoritative compendium of Sacred Tradition for Catholics that I am aware of, unless it is written in Latin and resides in the basement of St. Peter's.

Knowing God's Law is a lot easier for the Bible-believing Christian. We have His revealed Word as our sole authoritative document on matters of doctrine and faith. Sure, there are commentaries, creeds and constitutions, but these are intended as aids to understanding the Bible, not as authoritative rules and laws extrapolated from Scripture. Granted, there are legalists among Bible believers, but their writings and pronouncements have no more authority than any other commentary or creed.

2 Peter 1:20-2 1, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Revelation 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

No Harmony Between Biblical Christians and Catholics!

Is True Dialogue Possible?

The need to engage in a spirited exchange seems to be an imperative with some who would plead Rome's case, but are they searching for truth or defending a lie?

Since Vatican II, the Roman church has been on the ecumenical bandwagon. As the new millennium approaches, Rome's interest in gathering all professing Christians to her bosom seems to be intensifying. Is this a realistic goal? Will Christians have to turn aside from foundational doctrines of the faith in order to embrace Roman theology? Is the Roman church willing to honestly look at her dogma and doctrine and, where necessary, bring them into line with the clear teaching of Scripture?

Any sweetheart ecumenical arrangement between Christians and the Roman church will be hopelessly one-sided. The Roman Catholic church has no intention of modifying her dogma, doctrine or practice one iota, so the Chrstian interested in joining the Roman circus will be expected to abandon all his beliefs which are not in line with what the RCC holds as truth. Ecumenism? No way! We are talking about subjugation to an earthly cult.

"Furthermore, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians, STANDING FAST BY THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH yet searching together with severed brethren into the divine mysteries, should do so with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened whereby this kind of "fraternal rivalry" will incite all to a deeper realization and a clearer expression of the unfathomable riches of Christ.[3]--Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO), para 11c, 21 November 1964) [Emphasis not in original]

"Standing fast by the teachings of the Church…" certainly shows Rome's willingness to engage in honest dialogue. Sure, they'll talk about their doctrine, but only to argue that it is correct, not to look honestly at it in light of what the Bible says. It has been my experience and observation that, more likely than not, the RCC spokesman will go to just about any length, including the use of misquotes, shifting sources, denial of the clear wording of even RCC documents, etc., in order to defend Catholic dogma and doctrine.

Given Rome's doctrinal rigidity, the likelihood of anything resembling meaningful dialogue on issues of biblical doctrine seems quite remote. This is understandable, of course, when one considers that any Roman Catholic who does not hold to the party line on matters of dogma and doctrine will find himself anathematized. I should imagine that, for those who have placed their hopes for eternity in the hands of Rome, this is a fate almost too terrible to be contemplated. So, they promote the façade of ecumenical dialogue when, in reality, they only parrot what the Magisterium has declared to be 'truth.'

Is God in favor of ecumenism? Does He desire that His creation unite without regard to doctrinal differences? Would He be pleased to see believers forsaking sound biblical doctrine in order to embrace the false teachings of Rome? The Bible is quite clear on this:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.--2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Should believers give ear to the arguments of the Roman apologists and proselyters? Should we give them opportunities to air their heretical teachings in a Christian channel? Again, I do believe the Bible gives clear guidance:

Galatians 1:6-9, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Salvation is in the Christ of Scripture, not the pale clone of Rome.


Ye Must Be Born Again

Catholics Worship (Venerate) the Dead!
(Seeking Help From The Dead)


With apologies to Charles Dickens, these are the best of times - at least as far as relations between the Roman Catholic Church and her separated brethren. Or so the flood tide of ecumenical bilge issuing from Rome would have us to believe. But is that the way things really are? Are the issues which separate us such a big deal that they cannot be overcome if Christians show a little tolerance? Folks, when the Magisterium interprets Scripture, what they come up with seems, at first blush, to be very nearly what the Christian church believes. Rome projects a willingness to unite with her separated brethren, but never believe she will budge one micron on her doctrine or dogma. And, should some future pope even hint at relenting, there is always The Sacred Congregation of the Faith (The Inquisition) to haul him back into line.

While acknowledging that Christians "think differently" concerning Scripture, the RCC does concede the Word of God might be useful in achieving unity:

At the same time, however, they "think differently from us ... about the relationship between the Scriptures and the Church. In the Church, according to Catholic belief, an authentic teaching office plays a special role in the explanation and proclamation of the written word of God". Even so, "in [ecumenical] dialogue itself, the sacred utterances are precious instruments in the mighty hand of God for attaining that unity which the Savior holds out to all."--SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio)

Just how "differently" do Christians and the Magisterium think on the relationship between Scriptures and the Church? Just for giggles, let's examine a few issues.

Nearly 25 years ago, Paul VI wrote:

57. Christ is the only way to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:4-11), and the ultimate example to whom the disciple must conform his own conduct (cf. Jn. 13:15), to the extent of sharing Christ's sentiments (cf. Phil. 2:5), living His life and possessing His Spirit (cf. Gal. 2:20; Rom. 8:10-11). The Church has always taught this and nothing in pastoral activity should obscure this doctrine.--Marialis Cultus, Apostolic Exhortation of Paul VI, February, 1974)

Continuing that line of thinking, the Catholic catechism teaches:

2680 Prayer is primarily addressed to the Father; it can also be directed toward Jesus, particularly by the invocation of his holy name: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners.--Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), (c) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

In Scripture, the prophet Jeremiah wrote:

Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the LORD. Let us lift up our heart with [our] hands unto God in the heavens.--Lamentations 3:40, 41

Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.--Philippians 4:6

Well, from this it would not seem there is much difference between Christians and the teachings of Rome. Keep reading in the Catechism and you soon come to this mention of praying in communion with Mary:

2682 Because of Mary's singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit, the Church loves to pray in communion with the Virgin Mary, to magnify with her the great things the Lord has done for her, and to entrust supplications and praises to her.--CCC; Op. cit.

Scripture is replete with examples of believers coming together in prayer and of exhortations to continue in prayer. However, I am aware of no instance where we are told of believers joining together with the dead to pray. On the other hand, we certainly can find examples of what the Lord God thinks about calling upon the dead or praying to the dead:

There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you.--Deuteronomy 18:10-12 NASB

John MacArthur's comments on this passage make it crystal clear what the Lord thinks about those who try to contact the dead, particularly in an effort to influence the future.

18:9–12 the abominations of those nations. Moses gave a strict injunction not to copy, imitate, or do what the polytheistic Canaanites did. Nine detestable practices of the Canaanites were delineated in vv. 10, 11, namely: 1) sacrificing children in the fire (see 12:31); 2) witchcraft, seeking to determine the will of the gods by examining and interpreting omens; 3) soothsaying, attempting to control the future through power given by evil spirits; 4) interpreting omens, telling the future based on signs; 5) sorcery, inducing magical effects by drugs or some other sort of potion; 6) conjuring spells, binding other people by magical muttering; 7) being a medium, one who supposedly communicates with the dead, but actually communicates with demons; 8) being a spiritist, one who has an intimate acquaintance with the demonic, spiritual world; and 9) calling up the dead, investigating and seeking information from the dead. These evil practices were the reason the Lord was going to drive the Canaanites out of the land.--John F. MacArthur, Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing 1997

There can be little doubt that that warning to the Hebrew people wandering in the wilderness holds true to this day, for God does not change.

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;--1 Timothy 2:5

There must be some mistake here,. Catholics seem always to be praying to Mary or some saint or other. In my experience, they seek the help of these dead people (or their spirits) in order to obtain all manner of boons. I have stood by as Catholics prayed to Jude for the health of a friend or family member. Catholics light candles and pray to Erasmus for the relief of abdominal pain, to Roch for their cattle, to Basilissa for healing chilblains. Coin collectors pray to Eligius. Folks bitten by dogs look to Ubald for support. Gabriel the Archangel is the patron "saint" of those who work in the telecommunications industry. (praying to angels is a whole other subject).

Rome, and those who pretend to speak for her, usually are quick to claim that Catholics do not pray to these dead people, but with them. If that is true, why is the prayer known as the Hail Mary directed to her? True, in this prayer, the petitioner is asking dead Mary to pray for him, but in order to do so, he must first pray to her.

Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour or our death. Amen

Apart from the sheer foolishness of seeking help from a dead person, the very attempt to do so appears to be flying in the face of God's warning in Deuteronomy 18. Perhaps the new catechism's teaching that Christ is the only way to God is in error and all the stuff we read and hear about praying to Mary and other dead people is the way things really are.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.--Fidei Depositum, Apostolic Constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II, October 11, 1992

Well, if we are believe JP2, the catechism isn't wrong. That must also mean that the claims that dead Mary is mediatrix of God's grace, co-redeemer, advocate and the source of salvation must not really be the official, infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Whoops!!! That can't work either, for the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. And popes have had plenty to say about praying to Mary.

The Catholic Church, endowed with centuries of experience, recognizes in devotion to the Blessed Virgin a powerful aid for man as he strives for fulfillment. Mary, the New Woman, stands at the side of Christ, the New Man, within whose mystery the mystery of man[Cf. II Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 22: AAS 58 (1966), pp. 1042-1044.] alone finds true light; she is given to us as a pledge and guarantee that God's plan in Christ for the salvation of the whole man has already achieved realization in a creature: in her.--(MarialisCultus; Op. cit.

Not only do We earnestly exhort all Christians to give themselves to the recital of the pious devotion of the Rosary publicly, or privately in their own house and family, and that unceasingly, but we also desire that the whole of the month of October in this year should be consecrated to the Holy Queen of the Rosary. We decree and order that in the whole Catholic world, during this year, the devotion of the Rosary shall be solemnly celebrated by special and splendid services.--ON DEVOTION OF THE ROSARY,Supremi Apostolatus Officio, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII , September 1, 1883

Among the various supplications with which we successfully appeal to the Virgin Mother of God, the Holy Rosary without doubt occupies a special and distinct place. . . --Ingravescentibus Malis, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI promulgated on September 29, 1937.

We have deemed it Our duty to exhort again this year the people of Christendom to persevere in that method and formula of prayer known as the Rosary of Mary, and thereby to merit the powerful patronage of the great Mother of God.--Superiore Anno, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on August 30, 1884

What exactly is "praying the Rosary?" For an excellent Christian look at the ritual involved in praying repeated prayers of the Rosary, click here

As a Catholic youth, I sometimes joined other Catholics in praying the Rosary. It was my observation then that many who droned the incredible string of Hail Marys involved in this ritual appeared more interested in getting it over with than worshipping. Even today, some of my Catholic relatives who go through this rite twice daily say the interminable Hail Marys at light speed. They repeat the words so quickly that they are indeed unintelligible. To me, it appears they are paying dues, not worshipping.

Why do they do it? What motivates the Catholic faithful to get on their knees, often before a lighted candle and an effigy of dead Mary, and run through 50 prayers to dead Mary and but five to Almighty God? Well, one reason might be that the infallible popes have held out a carrot. By faithfully honoring dead Mary by praying the Rosary, Catholics are promised an early release from Purgatory.

In favor of those who shall do as We have above laid down, We are pleased to open the heavenly treasure-house of the Church that they may find therein at once encouragements and rewards for their piety. We therefore grant to all those who, in the prescribed space of time, shall have taken part in the public recital of the Rosary and the Litanies, and shall have prayed for Our intention, seven years and seven times forty days of indulgence, obtainable each time. . . We remit all punishment and penalties for sins committed, in the form of a Pontifical indulgence, to all who, in the prescribed time, either publicly in the churches or privately at home (when hindered from the former by lawful cause) shall have at least twice practiced these pious exercises; and who shall have, after due confession, approached the holy table. We further grant a plenary indulgence to those who, either on the feast of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary or within its octave, after having similarly purified their souls by a salutary confession, shall have approached the table of Christ and prayed in some church according to Our intention to God and the Blessed Virgin for the necessities of the Church.--Supremi Apostolatus Officio; Op. cit.

Faithfully praying the Rosary also can solve the world's social problems, according to a papal declaration:

We do not hesitate to affirm again publicly that We put great confidence in the Holy Rosary for the healing of evils which afflict our times--Ingruentium Malorum, Encyclical of Pope Pius XII promulgated on September 15, 1951.

Shoot!!! One pope even assures us that praying the Rosary is a good way to obtain immortality.



Very admirable is this crown interwoven with the angelic salutation which is interposed in the Sunday prayer, and unites with it the obligation of interior meditation. It is an excellent manner of prayer . . . and very useful for the attainment of immortal life--Acta Leonis, 1898, Vol. XVIII, pp. 154,155

Praying the Rosary involves repeating the same prayers to Mary and, to a lesser extent, God the Father. Was this what Jesus had in mind when He spoke out against repetitious prayers?

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.--Matthew 6:5-13

Praying the Rosary sure looks like praying to dead Mary to me. But a pope assures us it is a different kind of praying.

We do not pray to the Blessed in the same way as to God; for we ask the Holy Trinity to have mercy on us, but we ask all the Saints to pray for us . . . Yet our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God, so that the Church even addresses to her the words with which we pray to God: "Have mercy on sinners." . . For, so great is her dignity, so great her favour before God, that whosoever in his need will not have recourse to her is trying to fly without wings.--Augustissimae Virginis Mariae, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, September 12, 1897)

Why ask a dead person for help? God the Father is approachable.

The LORD [is] nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth. He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them. The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.--Psalms 145:18-20)

Catholic Purgatory is a Lie!

Indulgences are Silly and Useless



How many times have people seen RCC apologists argue that the Roman Catholic church worships only God, while merely venerating Mary and the lesser deities in the Catholic Pantheon?

They are wont to inform us, at times waspishly, that prayers offered to earth mother Mary and the Catholic saints are to seek their help and support before the Lord God. No Catholic, we are assured, ever renders worship to Mary, much less a mere saint.

Of course, any reasonable person rejects this denial as nothing more than an exercise in semantics. As often has been declared here, and elsewhere, when a person kneels before an image of a saint, lights a candle as an offering and drops a few coins or bills in the handy offering box, then looks adoringly at the statue or icon and prays fervently to the soul of the dead person represented by the image – that is worship.

2692. In prayer, the pilgrim Church is associated with that of the saints, whose intercession she asks.--Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

The Catholic church certainly is associated with her minor deities in the matter of prayer. So much so, in fact, that she rewards those who will humble themselves before these demigods and seek their favors in sophomoric and hyperbolic prayer. Consider this prayer, composed by a Doctor of the Church, Alphonsus de Ligouri:

O Saint Teresa, seraphic Virgin, beloved spouse of thy crucified Lord, thou who on earth didst burn with a love so intense toward thy God and my God, and now dost glow with a brighter and purer flame in paradise: obtain for me also, I beseech thee, a spark of that same holy fire which shall cause me to forget the world, all things created, and even myself; for thou didst ever avidly desire to see Him loved by all men. Grant that my every thought and desire and affection may be continually directed to doing the will of God, the supreme Good, whether I am in joy or in pain, for He is worthy to be loved and obeyed forever. Obtain for me this grace, thou who art so powerful with God; may I be all on fire, like thee, with the holy love of God. Amen.

Faithfully praying this prayer is to be rewarded with 300 days indulgence, or remission of temporal punishment for sin and the satisfaction owed to God. The neat thing about indulgences is that they are like Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free" cards and can be used for oneself or for the benefit of a soul in Purgatory. Kind of a twist on the prayers for the dead angle.

Should the prayerful Catholic dutifully and devoutly prayer this cloying little prayer for a full month, he is rewarded with a plenary, or full, indulgence – assuming, of course, that he fulfills all the other requirements for such a mercy.

The concept is mind-boggling. We know from Scripture that nothing impure can enter into the presence of God. We know from Scripture that God hates sin and that the punishment for unremitted sin is eternity separated from God. According to Scripture, there is but one means of atoning for sin – the shedding of blood. But whose blood? The blood of animals does not save, nor does the blood of men. Only the spilled blood of Christ is adequate to atone for the sins of mankind.

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that Christ's substitutionary sacrifice only served to atone for a part of the just punishment due every man for his sin. We are indeed made aware that there are sometimes temporal consequences for our sins (Hebrews 12), but there is no mention of the purifying flames of Purgatory. This is but another Catholic invention – one concocted by the Popes to provide a market for the selling of indulgences during the Middle Ages.

Should God choose to chastise his unruly children, it will be in this lifetime, for at death we go to our eternal home (Ecc. 12:5). Christians cannot accept the concept of Purgatory, for it is nothing more than an advertising gimmick to promote the sale of indulgences. The continuing offering of indulgences, while perhaps no longer a major source of RCC income, still serves the purpose of creating and maintaining dependency on the Roman cult to ease the consequences of sin.

Believers in the Christ of Scripture have no fear of Purgatory nor need for silly indulgences.

For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.--1 Thessalonians 5:9-10

Ye Must Be Born Again