Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« CNS: "Religious leaders urge more justice, fairness in farm bill" | Main | The Economics of Magic »

July 20, 2007


Marcel LeJeune

Catholicism and fear/cowardice are incompatible. When we give in to the surrounding culture rather than going out to evangelize it, disaster will follow for the Church in that place.

Tim J.

As much as Americans denigrate Europe (and I'm one of them), we are only a half-step behind them culturally - in terms of secularization, I mean. It may be that the Vatican will have to take a harder line with the U.S. soon, too.

Ed Peters

Excellent post, Jimmy.

I suggest only a minor caveat on your line about "if bishops had started excommunicating pro-abort Catholic politicians back when Catholic identity mattered to the politicians", the effect that the law would need to change to do that.

Tim J, matter of opinion here, but America is many more than one step behind Europe, certainly in terms of active Catholic Faith practice, we have them beat hands down, in every category. I take no pride in that (considering the low standard) but there is some consolation therein.


One under-40 Catholic priest I know, in this case a Canadian though he might easily be European, tells me that among priests of his generation, it's taken for granted that some may go to jail for defending Catholic teaching on sexuality. It's reminiscent of the way Catholic priests in Eastern Europe used to realistically accept that some of them might end up in Soviet gulags.

I hope it doesn't sound uncaring or twisted to say how utterly beautiful this would be -- to have priests, dare we hope bishops, and even laypeople living Matthew 5:10-12 in such a striking and dramatic way in our own back yards. (I know many are doing so now in China and elsewhere, but in many ways that's a different world.)

Just as the carnage of the scandal and the cover-up is so dispiriting, to see heroic suffering under persecution for the faith in this way would be inexpressibly inspiring. The kind of thing that makes you proud to be Catholic -- to belong to a Church with holy and virtuous pastors and shepherds who take seriously the Church's unpopular and scandalous teachings as well as the more popular and politically correct ones, and are willing to go to the mat for both and if necessary to brave public criticism and suffering for both.

The more bishops and priests display their willingness to do this, the more the Church images and makes manifest Christ himself, and the more receptive souls are drawn toward Christ and the Church, even as others who are less receptive are pushed away -- just as Jesus' words and actions pushed away some.

Ed Peters

PS: I am happy we don't have to look at Homer in his underwear everytime we check in to see what's shakin' at JimmyAkin! WooHoo.

Tim J.

Your probably right, Ed... I just see us heading in the same direction, though a few decades (more or less) behind.

It may be (please God) that we will be able to recover and turn aside before heading off the cliff.


A fine post, Jimmy, and thank you for calling attention to and commenting upon John Allen's good work.

But what gender issue? In "Domine, quo vadis?", "quo" is not a masculine pronoun but rather the adverb "whither." There is no conflict with the feminine "Europa." Staying within Church Latin, you would use a pronoun to designate a person (rather than a place) one was going towards. Thus St. Peter says: "Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes."


It is unio europaea, so maybe it should be quo vadis, Europaea? Maybe that is the issue, but i don't really know

Jimmy Akin

David is right. I didn't stop to fully parse the title. There is no gender issue.


"....as the church's central bête noir."

Hmmm. With the amazingly vast number of words in the English language, you'd think he could have got around using French.


I think we should try to be happy about holy priests, bishops, and religious that we have even with our current level of difficulties and find pride in that. Many places in this country, especially in the midwest it would seem, are richly blessed with holy men and women who will say the unpopular thing because it is right.

I just wish we could get some of the other kind on board.

And with the current environment, at least we hold SOME hope of influencing the culture if we speak boldly. If things actually do get to the point of executing Catholics in the streets, the amount we can do is little, other than maybe lead others to the truth through brave suffering. I can guarantee you in such a culture, the chances of getting abortion ended are a LOT worse than in ours, where we still have a hope.

So, basically, be careful what we wish for.


Oh, and despite what we may personally feel about farm subsidies, surely in the areas of the country that aren't California that the economy is almost completely dependent on farming the Catholic Church shouldn't just let anything go by without comment when it effects so many families.

As unpopular as it is with some conservative Catholics, economic justice IS a concern of the Church. While not an issue we have no room to discuss on like abortion, it is important, and is a teaching of the Church. We should try to follow the Church's moral leadership unless there's a severe reason otherwise instead of claiming anything we don't like is flexible. After all, that's what "Catholics for a Free Choice" do, even lying to themselves about how negotiable the issue really is.

Ed Peters

I never understood the syntax of "quo" btw. it always seems to me that a directional question should have used "quem". Pro dolore.

c matt

Economic issue are not necessarily less important, but they are far less clear cut than abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I don't know that we are really too far behind Europe - it seems we are just on a parallel, but different path, generally headed the same way. For example, on abortion, we are far ahead on the secular front. Many European countries only recently have legalized it, some still have not, and even those that have place far more restictions on it than the US does.


Oh yes, I agree, definitely less clear cut. I just detest the idea that because they're not as clear, it's optional to give a care about the matters. Or worse yet, take our personal political party of choice and saying whatever they're for must be morally right because they're the "good guys" - usually neither party has all the answers and is morally wrong about some things. Those things we must oppose our political leanings on, despite the fact it's going to make us very unpopular. Which I guess is the point of this whole thread. :)

And as abortion goes, given the LUDICROUS interpretation Roe v. Wade did about privacy rights, it's no wonder we're "ahead" of Europe on that one. We Americans do hold our keeping others out of our business sacred, even at the expense of a few million children it would seem.

Tim J.

"...surely in the areas of the country that aren't California that the economy is almost completely dependent on farming..."

Actually, California is a huge, huge farm state.


This is what we see in Christian communities in the Middle East, where Christians have to be extraordinarily diplomatic and careful in order to prevent Muslim reprisals.

This is what some Catholics don't get.

They believe that the recent Popes (JPII, BXVI) were surrendering to Islam by their seemingly acqueiscent actions thereby destroying Christianity when, in fact, the Popes were engaging in such diplomatic actions precisely to save it in regions where the Christian community is at the hands of an oppresive power.


Why are we so suprised about the secularization of society when our own catholic teaching in catholic countries no less has become secularized to basically now teach that all religions are good and if you are a good (Fill in the blank) you can find your way to salvation

This is the Vatican being hypocritical. If you want to water down the church teachings to be ecumenical and these politicians themselves are "Catholic" voted in by "Catholics" for the most part-many of whom dont even know or had a sound catechism-why are you all complaining and expressing outrage?

I love it when the Vatican themselves describe those that are adhering to teachings before things were changed as "Ultra Traditionalists" sort of like putting them on the same page as Osama Bin Laden

We are reaping what we have sowed


Of course it is, but they have OTHER things to fall back on. Places like North Dakota have very few options outside of it for the vast majority of their production. (Although, OBVIOUSLY there is SOME other industry, just not all that much that isn't related to farming.)

John: Why are we so suprised about the secularization of society when our own catholic teaching in catholic countries no less has become secularized to basically now teach that all religions are good and if you are a good (Fill in the blank) you can find your way to salvation.
Hmm, so that whole Dominus Iesus (On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church) by JPII was really just a suggestion.


"Europa" is the noun "Europe"; "Europaeus, -a, -um" is the adjective "European". So "Europa" is fine here.

Dr. Peters:

As David said, "quo" ("whither") is an adverb, not the ablative of the pronoun "qui". Likewise, the adverb "eo" ("thither") is not the ablative of "is". Of course, they look exactly like the ablatives, but this is a coincidence....

If it helps, these directional pronouns (as well as others like "huc" and "illuc") are thought to have originally been archaic forms of the Dative which got fossilized as directional adverbs (and so are similar to the normal second-declension Dative in -o, rather than the pronoun Dative in -i). Don't know if that helps at all, but perhaps you can see the connection with the Dative's basic meaning of "to". But perhaps this just muddles things more.

Ed Peters

that helps. really. thx.

Francis DS

More and more I am coming to believe that when anti-Catholics talk about Rome being the beast (or whore, I forget), Catholics can start asking what makes them so sure that the Vatican will still be in Rome when the end comes?

Kiril Lakota

What role (if any) does the Eastern Orthodox Christian Churche(s) play in Europe, unification, culture?

What do you think (especially Jimmy) of his Holiness Hilarion Alfeyev (I am not sure if it Bishop or Patriarch) I think now of Vienna?
Especially his role and comments on Ecumenicism.
On a side note his theological comments and spiritual reflections on the Descent into Hades by Christ?

Another interesting Orthodox Christian spiritual writer is Mother Alexandra (I think that is her name) who did a great book on Angels. She is the granddaughter of both the English Queen and the Russian Tsar being the daughter of the Romanian Royal family--she married Catholic Archduke Anton of the Austrian Monarch (I think a Habsburg)--she raised her many children and grandchildren but later become an Eastern Orthodox Christian nun.

Previously I have been dismissive of Eastern Orthodoxy, and also the Roman Catholic Church seems to have been much better at the social service arena and mass education (a positive thing) (schools, universities, hospitals, orphanages, etc)

One last note is that there is an Eastern Rite (Catholic in full union with Rome) Composer who now lives in Canada who does sacred and liturgical music (but I think he does Operas and other non liturgical per se music also) named Roman Hurko.
Check him out at:


I think rather introspective and beautiful music.
In all this talk of the Motu Propio and the Tridentine Mass and liturgy--there seems to be no talk about Eastern Liturgy (either in Greek, Old Slavonic--as liturgical languages or in the venacular as many do it in English in the US)
The same principles of reverence apply. The so called smells and bells.
Does Liturgy play any role in Europe and the re-Christianization that Pope John Paul the II so badly wanted.

Please comment. Thank you.

Some Day

When Our Lady in Fatima said whole nations would be anihalated, I think the apostate Europe and our country.

Tempus faciendi, noli tardare!


Solum Deus Scit!


With all this talk of Latin grammar, there must be a grammar/pronunciation guide online somewhere...please post links!


Capi mihi dolet.


Non, caput mihi dolet.

I am innocent

Jimmy Akin has declared:
at least of this website

as a former Protestant (albeit a linguist) how good is Jimmy's Latin?

For you neocons:
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori


Itane vero?

Quae haec est fabula?

A Simple Sinner

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur!

As far as Eastern Orthodoxy goes, Cardinal Lakota (smile), I am of the firm belief that amazing things will come out of these churches so very filled with martyrs. How it will happen? We have to watch.


"I am Innocent" - Mors et fugacem persequitur virum

which means "Death also pursues the man who is running away."

Death is the "end" of us all, American or European. But it seems to me that the Holy Father is living dangerously, and likely to lose support. I read such a sad comment this morning by a Catholic who said that in relation to the agenda of the Motu Proprio, and in view of the resolute slap in the face of our fellow Christians he "no longer feels part of the Church he belongs to." I guess that's the way the Lefebvrists felt 40 years ago, but this does betoken a serious division in the Church. We live in sad times.


"he 'no longer feels part of the Church he belongs to.'"

Every morning when I first wake up I have to answer a couple of questions:

Am I a narcissist whose particular brand of narcissism impels me to pride myself on being "a good Catholic" - with the key understanding that in those areas in which the Church does not flatter the opinions and whims of "the Marion Magesterium", I'll become pretty gosh-darned huffy about it . . . ?


Am I a devoted follower of Jesus Christ and His Church . . . ?

Those are it. That's what I have to decide every morning when I wake up.

Tim J.

Well put Marion.

If I don't "feel" I am part of the Church, that is an engraved invitation for me to do some very deep and serious self-examination about the real nature of my own faith.

To borrrow a phrase, "If you find you are not close to God, guess who moved?"

I conform myself to the teaching of Christ through His Church... I do not expect it to conform to me.

Tim J.

In other words, is it possible... just possible... that you have been thinking wrongly for a long time and maybe (possibly?) the Pope is, ya know, right?


If I don't "feel" I am part of the Church, that is an engraved invitation for me to do some very deep and serious self-examination about the real nature of my own faith.

But you should remember, of course, that such a feeling may in fact be a divine grace.

The important thing is being part of the Church. That particular feeling may be a means by which your faith is strengthened, because you believe now without that feeling (which is not God) to prop your faith.

(Was Jesus really abandoned by God on the cross? Certainly he felt it.)


I think that somewhere between pragmatism and praticality there is the possibility that the Church Militant may indeed rearm and reinstitute the knighthood in order to defend her people.

But this would be far more likely to happen in the face of the direct threat posed by Islam -- who has declared open war on our faith rather than as a response to the civil war declared by Secularism.


Isn't Kiri Lakota the Anthony Quinn character in that old movie about the next Pope being a Ukrainian Rite Catholic who suffered under communism than sells all the wealth of the Church to feed China and avert WWIII?


In response to those who picked up my earlier comment (July 21 6.23 am) I basically I agree that "feel" is the word that we should home in on. But the writer of the opinion I quoted (I don't know him personally though I do know some who "feel" similarly) affirms that he belongs and doesn't question that. Nor did he say that the Holy Father is mistaken/in error/off limits. But he is manifestly uncomfortable and so not feeling free to celebrate his faith as wholeheartedly as he would wish. As I suggested, this may well have been the situation for some Catholics who felt and were estranged when the New Order of Mass was widely introduced after Vatican Two.

I do not defend any decision to separate from the Catholic Church, then or now, but sometimes one can understand without approving and without condemning.

Marion (Mael Muire)

Dear James,

Won't you join with me in praying for the intentions of your acquaintance who says he no longer feels he belongs, and for all those who find themselves in similar straits?

I would invite this Catholic to unite himself profoundly with Our Lady and with Jesus in the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist, and there at the fount of grace, to beg God to enlighten his heart and mind and to show him the right way he ought to go.

I promise you, if he does this over the course of several days . . . it will be impossible for him to "feel that he does not belong" for much longer.


Skygor posted:

"Hmm, so that whole Dominus Iesus (On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church) by JPII was really just a suggestion. "

Correct yourself, this was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith

JPII's teachings were very clear, where he wrote in Ut Unam Sindt:

"Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church. To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian communities, the one church of Christ is effectively present in them” [emphasis added]."

Where once again JPII the ecumenist fails to even acknowledge this teaching has already been determined, that Anglicans are not in communion and do not have a valid mass, as defined by past popes, and so on-but hey, he never cared about tradition and the deposit of faith even though he was sworn to uphold it



You don't understand what you read and should not pretend that you do.

the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian communities

Truth is Truth and Pope John Paul II is acknowledging that fact whether or not you understand (which you don't) or like it.

Now let the noisy gonging begin.

Take care and God bless,

Jeb Protestant

Unfortunately, Rome supports three of the things that have put Europe in its current situation: (1) the EU; (2) mass immigration; and (3) religious pluralism.



Well, for pronunciation, a nice outline of the different methods can be found here [Warning: PDF Format]:


The Southern Continental/"Church Latin" column would be the one to look at.

Also, you might find this summary of the Ecclesiastical Pronunciation useful:


For grammar, there is an introductory-level grammar course here:


For more complex/advanced issues, Gildersleeve & Lodge is available here:



The EU, mass immigration, and religious pluralism are not inherently sinful concepts and therefore one cannot draw a line of causality from a good act that produced bad results (though I am not trying to say you believe this).

The reason Europe is in bad straights is because of the failure of the Church to more vigorously oppose abortion, contraception, and Modernism -- three intrinsically evil concepts. I know this is Monday Morning Quaterbacking. As Jimmy's post points out in his discussion on the merits of prudence versus practicality, the intention never was to support these things but to embrace the best strategies for countering them given the Church's status in modern culture.

I agree that the Church should not have so enthusiastically embraced the EU, but at the same time if she had not gotten involved in its formation, then she would not have had the influence to help sink certain harmful initiatives.

Overall, I think institutions like the UN and the EU are trying to create secular governments to take over the type of international relations role the Church herself played throughout history. To the extent that these institutions could mimic the Church and prevent war and enhance understanding they could do great good.

But ultimately these institutions are too secularist and materialistic and could only amount to mere shadows of the real thing.

And since when have Protestants been critical of Catholics promoting religious plurality?



I think the post of none other than Jeb the Protestant basically says it all and slams the door shut in your face once again

Any Pope that allows pagan idols to be placed on the altar of a catholic church.

Take the following from JPII titled:


Where he once again even advises that who are agnostic to go forth and worship as it is just the "signs of the times". Imagine this, the pope, who quoted Paul VI telling atheists that dont even believe in God to go ahead and do as you please.

"These words," the UN address added, "touch the very substance of the question. They also show how even the confrontation between the religious view and the agnostic or even atheistic view of the world, which is one of the 'signs of the times' of the present age, could preserve honest and respectful human dimensions without violating the essential rights of conscience of any man or woman living on earth" (Address to the 34th General Assembly of the United Nations, no. 20)."




First, the letter you quoted is addressed heads of states and their respective governments asking them to respect freedom of conscience and religious freedom. It seems you think faith should be forced upon people.

If you can quote where the pope tells atheists to do as they please I would like to see the quotation. If not quiet your gong.

Second, I am happy that you seem to realize that you and Jeb Protestant have so much in common especially in your beliefs.

Third, the pope never allowed pagan idols to be placed on the altar. They were put there without permission and then removed.

You and Jeb deserve each other.

Take care and God bless,


Inocencio, there are some who will not allow inconvenient facts to hobble their hobby horses.


Concerning religious freedom, I remember a prominent saint by the name of Thomas More who actually advocated religious freedom:

"Thomas More advocated religious freedom in "Utopia" to promote civic peace in Christendom and to help unify his fractious Catholic Church. In doing so, he set forth a plan for managing church-state relations that is a precursor to liberal approaches in this area. Kessler discusses how scholars have treated Utopian religious freedom and considers the much vexed question of whether More actually favored this principle. "

But I guess Saint/Sir Thomas More was nothing but a heretic; no wonder he literally gave his life defending the Papacy!

I guess those who are the true saints are the ones who serve the Lord with their lips and blaspheme Him & His Church!



True so very true. I hope all is well with you!

Take care and God bless,


Life is good, Esau(beats the heck out of the alternative!). Hope all is well with you, too.


Thanks, bill912!

I'm certainly very glad you're doing well (love it when good things happen to good people), but I believe Inocencio was the one who originally asked the question. ;^)


Obviously, I'm not doing as well as I thought. (As I get older, these brain cramps seem to be getting closer together).

Hope all is well with Inocencio, too.



No worries!

There's an apt description for these occurences that a friend of mine uses -- she calls them "brain farts"!

Some Day

Saint Thomas More would never write such a horrible thing like Utopia.

There is no legitamate proof he wrote it.

Second, believe it or not, religious freedom as concieved by repubicans and egalitarians is not compatible with Church Doctrine.
Only the Truth has the right to freedom, and the Church is Master of the Truth given to Her by Christ.

Individual freedom to sin is another case.


Some Day,

Have you actually read Utopia?

Also, how can you say Sir/St. Thomas More did not actually write it???

That's like saying J.K. Rowlings did not write Harry Potter!


Esau et al.:

I'm not sure that one should really hold up More as an advocate of tolerance. The nature of the "Utopia" is highly disputed - many (myself included - I don't think I really buy Kessler's argument) take it as a satire of precisely the sort of Utopian planning that it contains. And even if it is not wholly self-satirizing, one has to remember that *in practice* More was far from an advocate of tolerance. Your sarcastic "I guess Saint Thomas More was nothing but a heretic" could easily be used by those opposed to tolerance - More did, after all, order the imprisonment of at least 40, and the execution of at least 6 Lutherans.

Some Day:

What exactly are you suggesting? That More's friends (Erasmus) and his family (his nephew) were engaged in some kind of conspiracy to publish a spurious work in More's name during his own lifetime? Given that we have surviving copies of the original 1516 Louvain edition of Utopia, published under More's name, and we have a number of letters written both by More to friends of his and by friends to More that mention the work, I'm not sure on what grounds you say that "there is no legitimate proof he wrote it." If there is no legitimate proof of More's authorship of Utopia, then there is no legitimate proof of his authorship of just about any of the other works attributed to him (or, for that matter, of the authorship of anyone who wrote anything before the 19th century).



Utopia had been misinterpreted by many (e.g., communists) as being something it wasn't.

That said, what points made by Kessler in his piece do you actually disagree with and why? What are your reasons to support your contrary viewpoint?

As far as imprisonment of the Lutherans is concerned, England was a Catholic nation that, just like Spain, operated under principles that centered on the Catholic Faith and opposed those that didn't.

During those times, it was considered for the benefit and salvation of the person's soul that such acts were done (and actually found necessary) in order to save heretics from eternal damnation.

Unlike the times we live in today, eternal damnation was something so real, people then (in particular, the Catholic state) believed they were actually saving people from eternal torment by committing/allowing these actions since, as the Gospel would tell us, the pain we suffer in this life is nothing in comparison to that in Hell.


Inocencio posted with Esau and bill912 piling on:

"If you can quote where the pope tells atheists to do as they please I would like to see the quotation"

Inocencio-I already have, as he instructs all to treat these atheists with "respect" and to respect their "liberties"!!

Please now, take a look at JPII who first off allows non catholics to retranslate the bible for the 4th or 5th time as I cant keep count to keep it ecumenical. Anyone who even dares read the NAB today may as well read a sanitized version of a popular novel, where JPII gives his instructions to all in his 1987 masterpiece "FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE NEW "GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONFESSIONAL COOPERATION IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE"

When do we get a shot at the Talmud or Koran?

Here is a great JPII document on the applications of Ecumenism and how everything from the homily ot the eucharist should be done with the constant thought of the Protestant,Orthodox, whatever, and instructs the parish priests to be considerate of these schismatic faiths, but never the other way around


For you to sit there and defend a man who promoted a "One World Religion" and then cant figure out why the world loved him so much and the Catholic politicians on down in Catholic countries no less have no faith it is because we have had 40 years of hogwash and 26 of them with a man who refused to defend the Catholic church unlike the great B16!


Don't we as Catholics promote a "One World Religion?" Doesn't Catholic mean universal? Those that want the Catholic Church to be exclusive do not speak well to the messages of Christ or the apostles who took his message beyond the restrictions of Judaic law.


hmm... then Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to retire, but JP II didn't let him; in fact, he even helped pave the way for Ratzinger's rise to the papacy.

Damn that John Paul II was such a conniving devil!

B16 must, therefore, be a "wolf in sheep's clothing" since it was JP II who helped him.



How do you reconcile your hatred for Pope John Paul II with your new-found love for Pope Benedict XVI (one does not have to go back far in the comments to find you scourging him with the same lance you wielded against JP2)?

The man you now herald as "great," B16, himself regards the man you hate as great, has fast-tracked his canonization process, and invoked prayers for an early canonization of JP2.

Who is mistaken? You, or the great B16?


And John, for what it's worth, I would think that you, of all people, would be particularly grateful that Pope John Paul II took great care to be considerate of schismatics and to try to bring them back in the fold.

(That is, in any event, what a true shepherd does.)



As usual you haven't comprehended what you have read or quoted.

Your lack of charity proves my point about you being a noisy gong.

Do you even realize how much you and Jeb Protestant have in common? How much you sound alike?

May the Lord have mercy on both our souls.

Take care and God bless,

Some Day

And there are scrolls in the Dead Sea that have secret gospels...

Please, the Devil is pretty old.

He was around when St. Thomas was around.


Some Day,

NO, the Devil did NOT write Utopia!

Nor did he get St. Thomas More to do so for him!

Mind you, St. Thomas More lost not only his wealth, his family, his very well-being, but his life as well for the Catholic Faith and Christ Himself!


Hmm, John Paul II, a man who promoted religious liberty and ecumenism up to his deathbed, basically equating all religions as being equal and good

When I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism, and I quote:

Sins against the faith:
A person sins against faith, first, by not trying to know what God has taught; second, by refusing to believe all that God has taught; third, by neglecting to profess his belief in what God has taught." (Baltimore Catechism No. 4, p. 265)

False worship:
False worship is a sin against the First Commandment. "And now that we have the real sacrifice it would be sinful to use only figures, (as in other religions) and it would be a false worship displeasing to God ...So, too, all those who leave the true Church to practice a religion of their own have a false worship, for they worship God not as He wants, but as they wish" (Baltimore Catechism No. 4, p. 261).

So therefore to "respect other religions" means to not interfere with their beliefs, which is not what Christ said to his apostles when he told them to baptise all nations, not some nations, but all nations

Jesus did not come into this world to establish a bunch of religions all allowing for salvation, because then all religions would have been equally pleasing to God.

Christ came to establish the CATHOLIC Church which contains the WHOLE deposit of divinely revealed truth which is the ONLY means to salvation. But with a Pope such as JPII who promoted interfaith worship, which is a clear defection from basic catechism and teachings of the church, let alone scripture which I think even someone like a former Protestant like Esau would agree on, one can only assume he was either misguided, ignorant, or something other



If that is what you think Pope John Paul II taught you need lessons in reading comprehension. Your understanding of the Church and the Papacy is a joke.

I truly pity you.

Take care and God bless,



How do you reconcile your hatred for Pope John Paul II with your new-found love for Pope Benedict XVI (one does not have to go back far in the comments to find you scourging him with the same lance you wielded against JP2)?

The man you now herald as "great," B16, himself regards the man you hate as great, has fast-tracked his canonization process, and invoked prayers for an early canonization of JP2.

Who is mistaken? You, or the great B16?

Tim J.

"basically equating all religions as being equal and good"

John, that is just utterly, demonstrably false, the hundredth time as it was the first.

Your own, personal pet readings of what you THINK JPII said have no bearing on what he actually meant.

I know you have been hurt and disheartened by many of the changes in the last 50 years, and that making JPII the locus of evil may give you some kind of emotional crutch (when people are unhappy it is very natural for them to look for an enemy they can lay blame on), but you are really doing yourself no favor by demonizing the Holy Father.

You are so determined to believe the worst about JPII that you are beyond the reach of reason or argument, which is never a good thing.

If these kinds of things make you get all worked up and lose your peace, I recommend you just don't think about them, let alone speak about them.

"Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof...". It does no good to continually bash a dead Pope.

Some Day


You cannot say that he taught heresy.

Because there is no document of the Pope proclaiming infallibly that is so.

Now doing this that would lead the tendencies and passions of people to feel that is another.

Smelling like heresy and being heresy is quite diffferent.

You don't know John.

Maybe he did some things before his death that ultimately will restore the Church.

It may seem insignificant...
But it set a series of chain reactions that will lead to the rise of those who would be Champions of Mary, as envisioned by St. Louis de Monfort.

Plus, who are you to point fingers at the Pope huh?

If you want to polemisize with the Holy Hierarchy, you better do it on your knees!


I hate no man, especially a Pope

But when a man who is responsible for the souls of 1B persons leads them astray, and one does not need to be a master theologian to know that worship with Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, Indians, Natives, on and on-would, if this was the OT be punished by God as God punished the Jews so many times in the OT for worshipping other Gods and idols

Though we are obviously enjoying that of a new covenant, Quite possibly due to JPII's penchant for allowing false worship to take place in the houses and on the altars where the unbloody sacrifice of Gods only son is to take place, possibly we are undergoing a wrath (wars and the continued growth of Islam in Catholic countries, pedophile abuse, loss of faith among the laity, Europe in disaray as this thread is basically about, etc) in a way that one has yet to quite understand except B16 knows that something is wrong and is trying to put a stop to such



What do you make of the fact that B16 wants to speed up the canonization process for a Vicar of Christ that you so openly despise, if not hate?

Who is mistaken in their judgment of John Paul II, you or B16?



Will you please answer Esquire's question.


What do you make of the fact that B16 wants to speed up the canonization process for a Vicar of Christ that you so openly despise, if not hate?

Who is mistaken in their judgment of John Paul II, you or B16?

Take care and God bless,

Some Day

I certainly disagree with many acts done in the name of ecumenism, yet it I will not say that the Pope commited heretical acts because that is impossible.
He is Pope and therefore cannot teach heresy.

You can even go as far as to challange the beatification of John XXIII, but not say that any pope taught heresy as magisterium of the Church.

I dare say it, but if it is zeal for justice, I assure you, yours stays pharisaical, because you obviously are not taking the right steps to destroy the process of evil and give glory to God, Mary and the Militant Church.


Some day posted:

"I certainly disagree with many acts done in the name of ecumenism, yet it I will not say that the Pope commited heretical acts because that is impossible.
He is Pope and therefore cannot teach heresy."

Some day, in my heart I agree with what you said in total. But please look at what you said

You start off by saying that you disagree with many of the acts done in the name of ecumenism, and I would think that Assissi, promulgated by JPII would be top of the list

But then you say that you wont say that the Pope did not commit any heretical acts because the pope can not teach heresy (this by the way is not true as Vatican I discussed this subject, and would not have done so if this was not a possibility, but that is for another thread)

Your two thoughts contradict eachother

Either you agree with the acts in total as part of Catholic teaching (Assissi and all that goes on in the name of ecumenism) or you dont and consider them heresy or at least apostasy

You cant have it both ways



Indeed you cannot have it both ways.

You cannot pretend to believe in the Divine authority of the Papacy and continually pretend it has none unless it comes from you.

You should heed your own advice.

I knew you couldn't/wouldn't answer Esquire's question.

Take care and God bless,



Still waiting for an answer to my question. It is not bait, it is not a trap. I'm seriously interested in how you reconcile your view of B16 with his evident admiration of JP2. Indeed, admiration is too light a word, as you don't push for canonization, much less on an accelerated basis, for one that you merely admire. You only do that if you truly believe that they are a person of heroic virtue.

So the question remains, if you despise JP2 and love B16 because you think he's backing away from everything JP2 did, how do you reconcile that view with B16's efforts to accelerate JP2's beatification/canonization?

And I would be ready, willing and able to have a calm, reasoned discussion with you about why your reading of Vatican I is incorrect, whether on this thread or another thread. No need for invectives or ad hominem attacks by either of us.



May I suggest this post for your discussiong with John.

Searching For SuperPope

Take care and God bless,


In my view, there are a lot of factors contributing to Europe's secularization. The most important is that, twice in the 20th century, they fought wars that killed more than 55 million people. That will have a sobering and stablizing effect even on the strongest religious zealot.

Throughout its history, moreover, Europe has been beset by bloodshed caused by religious controversy. To paraphrase Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC), who chaired the Senate Watergate Committee in the early 1970's, the Europeans spent the Thirty Years War slitting each other's throats because they could not agree on what happened after the throats were slit.

In many respects, I think Europe is worn out, and it just wants peace. To certain extent, I find that admirable. They have become "lazy and fat" however, and I do hope that they understand the peril that an increasingly militant Islam presents to their way of life.

One participant in this group expressed the view that the United States should be a "Catholic Republic." I strongly disagree. The key to the success of the United States has been its ability, for the most part, to separate church from state, and to permit persons of diverse faiths and backgrounds to form a government that works and to get along with each other. If anyone attempted to establish a "Catholic Republic," do you think the other religious groups will suppinely roll over and permit that to happen? How could any such turmoil and controversy possibly be in the best interest of our people?

And which of the five principal rites of the Catholic faith would be established? The Roman Rite? You will find that we Byzantine Catholics will not be pleased with that.

The religious freedom that is enjoyed in the United States has helped the Catholic church, considering that Catholics are a minority in the United States. If any national church were established in this country, it would not be the Catholic Church.

The Pope gained international admiration and stature from the secular world only after he was deprived of the Papal States in 1870. Having been removed from the political affairs of Italy, only his spiritual role was left, and it is for that, and nothing more, that he is entitled to the world's respect.


There is no doubt that the hierarchy of the Roman Rite has been guilty of a serious failure in moral leadership, which has contributed to the pro-abortion mentality and the general decline in moral standards in our society.

The most shameless example of that occurred in Boston, where the church refuses to excommunicate Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), despite his pro-abortion stance and dissolute life in general. Is the Archdiocese of Boston so beholden to Kennedy money and Kennedy mystique that it is afraid to excommunicate him? I realize that is a serious charge, but the failure of the Archdiocese to act is a serious scandal, and it could refute my charge by excommunicating him, but for some reason, it does not do so.

Recent events suggest that the Archdiocese of Boston is morally corrupt in other ways. Mr. Bernard Law, the former Archbishop, is guilty of shuffling pedophiles and cost the unsuspecting sheep (oops, I mean Roman Catholic faithful) hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement money on account of his misconduct. Was he punished by the Vatican? No, he was rewarded with a sinecure in Rome, which conveniently immunizes him from prosecution in the United States.

Mr. Thomas O'Brien, the former Bishop of Phoenix, became the first U.S. Catholic bishop to be a convicted felon (a hit-and-run driving incident) and shuffled pedophiles as well, yet the Phoenix Diocese continues to give him financial support.

Mr. O'Brien appears to have sent many of the Irish perverts to a Hispanic parish, which played right into the bigots' hands. In the Southwestern United States, many Episcopals believe that the Roman Catholic church consists of conniving Irish who take advantage of docile Hispanics. While I do not believe that, Mr. O'Brien, the convicted felon, gave them plenty of ammunition to keep repeating the charge. Shame on him.

Now we have Mr. Roger Mahoney, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, forking out $600 million to settle pedophile claims there (keep this in mind the next time he asks you for money), and shamelessly appearing before the victims to "apologize," using some inane analogy about rewinding and erasing a video tape.

And through it all, Pope Benedict XVI and others have the gall to maintain that membership in the Catholic church is necessary for salvation.

If that is true, then people like Messrs. Law, O'Brien, and Mahoney will bear heavy responsibility at the Last Judgment, as they account for all those people they drove away from the church through their disgusting, immoral, and corrupt conduct.

My Catholic faith does not require me to condone criminals, whether they are in hierarchy or elsewhere. Indeed, if I did not care about the Catholic faith, none of this would bother me.


Inocencio, Esquire and Some day

Sticking to the topic of the thread of secularization of Europe and my as well as many for that matter whose assertion that JPII compromised the faith in the name of ecumenism, which Some Day posted he did not like some of what took place in the name of ecumenism

Lets take a look at the definition of heresy and I will quote:

"St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".

Therfore one can either reject Christ in totality, or one restrict beliefs to certain points of Christ's doctrine. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.

So applying the above to John Paul II, in just one simple example as his interfaith prayerfests with pagans as posted above:

False worship:
False worship is a sin against the First Commandment. "And now that we have the real sacrifice it would be sinful to use only figures, (as in other religions) and it would be a false worship displeasing to God ...So, too, all those who leave the true Church to practice a religion of their own have a false worship, for they worship God not as He wants, but as they wish" (Baltimore Catechism No. 4, p. 261).

So therefore to "respect other religions" means to not interfere with their beliefs, which is not what Christ said to his apostles when he told them to baptise all nations, not some nations, but all nations

So with John Paul praying with Indians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc-all of whom profess Many gods (small g)-Is he not in violation of the first commandment not to mention infallible dogma of the Catholic church with respect to interfaith worship as infallibly taught by Council and Previous pope, and we all know that one Pope can not correct or change a teaching of a previous pope

The answer is simple

John Damascus

The two main ideological challenges for us all are Relativism and Islamism.

Pope's aide warns of 'threat by Islam' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/27/wislam127.xml

John Damascus

BTW, my comment above should not be understood as agreeing with John. I agree with Popes John-Paul and Benedict on these matters.

Interestingly, it was Rome's desire to reach a practical accommodation with Islam that led to the Schism of 1054. As I am sure many of you know, the Eastern Church makes great use of icons. The Muslims found the icons offensive, believing them to be "graven images." In an effort to keep peace with the Muslims (and prevent the invasion of Europe), the Pope requested/directed the Eastern Church to stop using the icons.

The Eastern Church declined, holding that there was nothing sinful about them, and that further, the Pope, although entitled to determine questions of faith and morals and make those determinations binding on the universal church, had no right to regulate the internal worship and discipline of an autocephalus church.

The controversy over the proper role of the Pope continued. One day, he demanded that Constantinople insert the word "filioque" into the Creed. Hey, wait a minute, said Constantinople, the Creed is the Universal Church's statement of faith. If it needs changing, you ought not to do that unilaterally, but call an ecumenical council, so that the matter can be discussed and decided.

[In modern terms, it is the equivalent of one U.S. state trying to unilaterally impose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the other states]

The Pope was stubborn, however, and when Constantinople refused to add "filioque" to the Creed, Rome excommunicated Constantinople. Constantinople returned the favor, and excommunicated Rome. This was the Great Schism in 1054.

Eastern Catholics, who subsequently reunited with the Pope, in his capacity as head of the Universal Church, often omit "filioque" from the Creed, and the Pope is happy to allow us to do that. Rather makes you wonder what all the fuss was about in 1054.

For Eastern Catholics, the problem is trying to keep the Pope within his assigned role.

As head of the Roman Rite, the Pope can regulate the Roman church any way he wants to. As Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, however, he has authority only in matters of faith and morals (and those are relatively few), and no authority over the liturgical worship or discipline of a non-Roman church that is in communion with him.

The difficulty is getting him to remember which role he is exercising.



How do you reconcile your love for Pope Benedict XVI with his professed desire to accelerate the beatification and canonization of a man you deem to be a heretic?

Do you think that Pope Benedict XVI has seriously misjudged Pope John Paul II?

Or is it possible that you have?


Inocencio and Esquire,

Do you really think that presenting John with even the most convincing argument (short of God opening up the Heavens and telling John personally that JP II was indeed a holy man) would actually change his mind about Pope John Paul II?

I believe Tim J's Jul 25, 2007 10:19:40 AM Post sums it up quite neatly.



Hope springs eternal where truth is concerned.



Can you please provide documentation for your claims about the schism of 1054?


I don't really think anything we convince John but I can hope.

Take care and God bless,


Esquire, Inocencio,

God bless the both of you for your perseverence and optimism.

Take heart though the Parable of the Sower.

You might be throwing seeds at rather stony ground.

Nevertheless, I do applaud the both of you for your relentless efforts and enduring commitment to the Gospels.

God bless.


Esquire, Esau and Inocencio

You once again fail to stay on the topic of JPII and the great falling away from the Catholic faith in Europe all of which has basically taken place over the past 40 years, of which 26 of the most horific has taken place under the man whom you and the secular world have granted the title "Great" and circumvented the most basic of the realms for sainthood

One can have a Pope within the church, as we have had in our long history, who can be deemed a "bad pope" or even borderline heretic (do you deem selling indulgences to the peasants for salvation as ordered by the Pope because of monies he squandered to pay for the sistine chapel and other works commissioned by the vatican as something "infallible" and something to be commended?) or do you deem it sinful and the works of a corrupt and misguided pope?

As the poster above clearly stated, some of the church's most dark histories, the schism of 1054 due to compromise with Islam, the Reformation due to corruptness of the Vatican and the Pope, and the post councilar years, where appeasement of false faiths spearheaded like no other than JPII has caused damage to the church like at no other time.

I know as a former Protestant Esau you have issues with apparations, but Our Lady warned us about corrupt clergy and that the church would become corrupt from within and to be honest some of the greatest harm to the church has been caused by those whom have been entrusted with the papal tiarra, and for many the reason the papal oath in the 7th century was added because though the vicar of christ was to be chosen by the holy spirit, quite possibly saying those words of oath, much like the president does after being elected in November does on innaguration day, quite possibly reinforces the severity of the throne

B16 is the counter to JPII and was by no means a great fan of his, as he was critical of Assissi, changed the election process for the pope back to a 2/3 majority, started restoring the liturgy, reinforced the "wounds" of the Protestants and reminded them they are not a church, and with Gods blessing the next pope will continue to crush the "spirit" that has reigned these past 40 years even further into the ground



Please post documentation that the schism of 1054 was due to compromise with Islam.

I know it is a silly request but I can still hope.

Take care and God bless,



"...and was by no means a great fan of his..."

You're right.

After all, B16 has not only continually referred to JP2 as "the Great," he has also accelerated the beatification / canonization process for him.

No great fan indeed.

Was B16 lying here?

Or here, when he said this:

In the footsteps of my Predecessors, especially Paul VI and John Paul II, I feel strongly the need to reassert the irreversible commitment taken by the Second Vatican Council and pursued in recent years, also thanks to the activity of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

and (gasp) this:

I am particularly grateful for the presence in our midst of members of the Muslim community, and I express my appreciation for the growth of dialogue between Muslims and Christians, both at the local and international level. I assure you that the Church wants to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions, in order to seek the true good of every person and of society as a whole.

And what about here, when he said this:

Initially, in speaking of the Pope’s legacy, I forgot to mention the many documents that he left us – 14 encyclicals, many Pastoral Letters, and others. All this is a rich patrimony that has not yet been assimilated by the Church. My personal mission is not to issue many new documents, but to ensure that his documents are assimilated, because they are a rich treasure, they are the authentic interpretation of Vatican II. We know that the Pope was a man of the Council, that he internalized the spirit and the word of the Council. Through these writings he helps us understand what the Council wanted and what it didn’t. This helps us to be the Church of our times and of the future.

How could B16 not only lavish praise and honor on JP2, but do so for the very reasons you despise him?

Who are you misreading? JP2, or B16? Or both?


And John, before you conclude that those examples were "early" in his pontificate, and that "now" B16 has seen the light, you might consider this from earlier this year:

As I have said on several occasions, in continuation with the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate and with my beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us.

Doesn't sound like a Holy Father who wants to "undo" Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, or the work of JP2 to me.

I'm thinking you might have misinterpreted someone.



B16 has to be a poliician, and "appear" to not besmuge a so called ecumenical council that appeased the Jews and so much of the secular world. Actions speak louder than words, like the counter to your argument is JPII saying some so called "traditional" and conservative things then right after showed his true colors and ran to the synagogue to pray with the Jews for their messiah, or lit their menorah candles or kissed a koran.



So you don't take B16 at his word? He is telling you how to interpret what he's doing, but he doesn't really mean what he says?

If there is anyone I've ever seen who is careful with words and means exactly what he says, its B16.

Interpreting his actions by disregarding his words seems contrary to reason.



JPII was an extremely bad pope and history will prove this out, not only did he look the way with respect to the abuse of young children which was condoned and covered up by Bishops, 99% of whom he put into place during his pontificate. It is only because of various laws these men are not convicted and jailed, with Law and Levada conveniently wisked away to Rome. A man can easily be judged by his actions as well as the company he surrounds himself with, and corrupt Bishops who in the US cant even come to a majority on the denial of Our Lords body to baby killing "pro abortion Catholic politicians" is just another example.

The true Church will always be there and never defect, but Our Lord did not promise that the Church would be in every place at every time. In fact, scripture says otherwise.

The Gospels teach us that the Church may well be reduced by the time of the Second Coming: "But yet the Son of Man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8).

Why did God allow Luther to take half the Church into heresy? Why did God allow the majority of the Eastern Church to defect into schism? It is really the same question: How did God allow many Catholics to fall into the borderline heresy of John Paul II and believe he was teaching infallibly

Jesus said and I quote:

"Do not think that I have come to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword" (Matthew 10:34)" and this is another time where we must stand up for the true faith, as Our Lord stood up against the pharisies of his time.

Remember, if the pope is the successor to Peter, and Paul was never Pope, was it not Paul who had to rebuke Peter at the Council of Jeruselem when and I quote againf from the bible:

"But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11).

Now I will go no further on this subject because you are obviously trying to get me to say something I should not, but it is clear that B16 is at least on the right course and we can only pray for an even more righteous successor


Not that I'm gonna try to argue this whole thing over and over as has previously been done, but I would like to bring up one point.

The menorah? What's so bad about that? It's celebrating the story in 2 Maccabees where the oil to restore the defiled temple miraculously lasted seven days. It's in our Bible, where's the harm in celebrating that?


Jarnor posted:

"The menorah? What's so bad about that? It's celebrating the story in 2 Maccabees where the oil to restore the defiled temple miraculously lasted seven days. It's in our Bible, where's the harm in celebrating that?"

Jarnor, let me give you a simple explanation. In the world of commercial real estate, and I wont go into my position in such, the arguments and hatred I get each year for the simple installation of a Christmas tree (now called Holiday Tree and Holiday Party, etc), a pagan symbol that in reality means nothing and a creche should be the true symbol of Christmas. I then have to put the menorah up which is fine but if you ask any devout Jew, the season of Chanukah is so far down on the list of celebrations for the Jews, it is done solely out of spite for Christians and was only a true development of the last 100 years in America for the most part that it became a "celebration of lights" and so forth to rival Christians

So to answer your question-when I see the Grand Rabbi of NYC come light the tree in Rockefeller Center this year will it be OK for the Vicar of Christ in his lame attempt at ecumenism to be doing such a false act. If we want to celebrate Old Testament rituals, then we should be also celebrating all of the Jewish holidays as well

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31