Arrest the Pope?

29 04 2010

The atheist blogosphere has been positively buzzing as of late with calls to arrest Pope Benedict XVI. I’m no fan of the Catholic Church, but I have seen evidence that the media reports half-truths and pulls things out of context to make the Catholic Church look worse than it has to. The case of Father Lawrence Murphy is a great example.

The leader of the charge is the always pit bull-like Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens wants the Pope charged with aiding and abetting the scandal–or perhaps more serious charges, such as accessory to rape.

The problem is that the Holy See, of which the Pope is head, is treated as a state for the purposes of international relations. As head of that state, the Pope enjoys sovereign immunity, the controversial concept that the government can’t be the subject of a lawsuit or a criminal proceeding.

Sovereign immunity can be waived by the owner, and it’s very doubtful that either the Pope or the Catholic Church will do that. Or, courts can strike it down as inapplicable in the current case, as was done by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in November of 2008. A case against the Vatican was allowed to proceed because sovereign immunity doesn’t apply to tort law, according to the Fedeal Sovereign Immunities Act.

Sovereign immunity doesn’t apply to international tribunals, either. The Pope could still be charged in the International Criminal Court for patterns of human rights violations perpetrated by the Vatican under the previous two pontiffs.

It will be interesting to see if this actually comes to pass. I doubt that it will, but we shall see.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Sin

Media Sensationalism and the New Pedophile Priest Scandals

31 03 2010

Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times about the Catholic pedophile priest scandals that seem to be a dime a dozen now. This piece first came to my attention via Atheist Revolution, writing:

A priest molested 200 deaf boys and was ignored by Ratzinger. 200 deaf boys. Just when I think this sick enterprise cannot possibly get any worse, we learn not only that this happened but that the victims have spent 30 years of their lives trying to get the church to pay attention to them!

Then Cardinal Ratzinger was informed about this abuse and chose to look the other way. How can anyone reconcile this with the whole infallibility thing?

Regular readers know that I’m not apt to defend the Catholic Church. I am deeply sickened by moving priests who molest little boys from diocese to diocese, hoping no one will actually catch on. I’m sympathetic to the missions of SNAP and BishopAccountability.org. I think that something needs to change.

That said, I also believe in correctly representing those that you criticize. Dowd isn’t doing that at all. Neither is Vjack.

But should it surprise me? Nope. I’ve proven Vjack wrong before, and he keeps repeating the same mistakes. I’m thinking that he’s not going to take the correction here, either.

With regards to “the whole infallibility thing,” papal infallibility should be properly defined.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.

And it goes on:

This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

Not to mention that the actions which Vjack wishes to contrast with papal infallibility occured when Benedict was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, before he was Pope. This is not a valid comparison. Even so, no one has ever claimed that the Pope is free of sin, only that he cannot teach error (though I should remind everyone that I disagree with that position vehemently).

But, Catholic theology aside, what about the fact that the future Pope looked the other way when faced with this case? Thing is, he probably didn’t. This is being misrepresented by the media. Grossly. Jimmy Akin has analyzed the available documents and presents a more accurate version of events here.

Again, I’m no fan of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that some of the criticisms in the Father Murphy case are unwarranted. But, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this man did molest boys by his own admission. He still deserved more punishment than just being moved to another diocese, though since he had to live with his mother some may argue that may have been punishment enough.

Both the civil authorities and the Catholic Church are to blame here. The police knew about the case and had investigated, but nothing ever came of it. And the Church should have done much more than just move Murphy to another diocese and call it a day.

Was it really necessary to open a trial with the purpose of defrocking an ill and frail old man who is a threat to no one some 30 years after the offenses took place? If civil authorites built a case against a murderer who had killed someone 30 years ago and recently suffered a second stroke leaving him in poor health, no one would bat an eyelash if the authorities elected to not prosecute the offender. Why is this different? (I’m really looking forward to your answers.)


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Papacy, Roman Catholicism

Answering Objections to the Identity of First Beast

18 05 2009

There are three basic objections to the idea that the papacy is the Antichrist. The first is easy to answer from Scripture, the second is a legitimate point that isn’t as easy. The third is complicated to explain. The first objection is that Scripture clearly refers to one man of sin, a future personal opponent of Jesus Christ. The papacy is an institution, not an individual. The second objection is that the pope is often an example of moral living, and generally does no evil. The final objection is that, because Catholicism is Christian, the pope is not denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 6 Comments »

Categories : Eschatology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Sin, Theology

Plenary Indulgences Being Offered in Year of Priests

12 05 2009

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (Mk 2:5-11, emphasis added)

The Pope is, once again, taking the authority of God on himself and offering a plenary indulgence to priests and faithful who pray for priests during the upcoming Year of Priests.

The very idea of man being able to declare that sins are forgiven is a blasphemous notion, as the above passage from the Gospel of Mark points out. Who can forgive sins but God alone? The text grants the authority of forgiveness to God and to the Son of Man. The pope is neither.


Comments : 5 Comments »

Categories : Heresy, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Sin

The First Beast of Revelation 13 Demystified

11 05 2009

The pseudonymous TurretinFan, both on his blog and on Alpha & Omega Ministries, has identified a number of arguments that Protestants should avoid when addressing the errors of Catholicism. While I agree with much of the list, I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify one particular argument that we should avoid, and that is arguing that the Pope is the Antichrist.

TurretinFan rightly points out that there are major historical reasons for believing that the Pope is the Antichrist, the Beast of Revelation 13:1-10. It is extremely difficult to articulate those reasons in a short conversation for a few reasons. First, most people are ignorant of the rampant symbolism in Jewish apocolyptic literature. It is difficult to build a firm foundation so that they understand all of the issues at hand in the time often alloted for these short witnessing moments.

Fortunately, with a blog post, that restriction is gone. This article will answer, once and for all, why we Protestants who understand these issues will never submit to the papacy.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 13 Comments »

Categories : Eschatology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Theology

Why I’m Not Roman Catholic

20 04 2009

James White had a very thoughtful post on the theological issues that underlie the decision to be or not to be Roman Catholic. Reading that post, as well as listening to his extended Dividing Line podcast has led me back into the fold of Calvinism, which I believe is a very good thing. I need to solidify my theology if I expect to defend it against outsiders.

But it leaves me with the question of why I’m Reformed and not something else, like Roman Catholic. Regular readers of this blog will recall that I was raised Catholic–baptized and confirmed. So why am I not still Catholic?

I’m not Catholic for four very important theological reasons: dispensing of grace by sacraments, veneration of saints and Mary, the Eucharist, and the alleged infallibility of the Pope. I simply cannot agree to the Roman theology behind these three items.

I’ve found recently in two snippets from the news and the book Justification by Hans Kung that the Roman view of justification is essentially the same as the Reformed view. I admit that I haven’t read Justification carefully enough, but I’m assured that that is the conclusion of the book. Man is justified before God solely on the basis of grace through faith, plus nothing. That is the Reformed view as well as the Catholic view.

However, Catholicism differs from the Reformed view of grace significantly. Grace is dispensed through the sacraments in Catholicism. In the Reformed view, it is God’s discretion upon whom grace is given; in other words, it is a free gift and not of works (Eph 2:8-10). Since grace is unmerited favor, it makes no sense that one has to work for it in the Roman view. On the other hand, the Reformed view makes much more sense; God bestows grace upon whom he will (see Rom 9).

Worshiping anyone or anything other than God is idolatry; Scripture makes that clear (see, for example, this post from TurretinFan). Therefore, I see no justification for the veneration of saints, angels, or the Virgin Mary that one sees in Romanism.

The rubber justification that the Romanists often use is that they only pay latria to God, while offering dulia to the saints and Mary. Latria is pure worship, while dulia is more like a deep reverence. This is a distinction without a difference. One should err on the side of caution, especially in light of the first commandment’s harsh penalty proscriptions for idolatry.

Consider the severe punishments that God pronounces on the entire nation of Israel for her disobedience and idolatry. Consider the judgments of the pagan nations in the Promised Land due to their idolatry. This is something that God takes very seriously. As an extension, so should we!

The Eucharist is a fancy form of idolatry. The Eucharist isn’t merely a symbol of the body and blood of Christ; in Romanism, it becomes the body and blood of Christ, and therefore an object to be worshiped. Worshiping bread and wine is idolatry, regardless of what it symbolizes.

The Eucharist is disgusting in another way. It “re-presents” the sacrifice of Christ, so that Jesus is sacrificed over and over again on the altars of Romanism. This makes light of the fact that Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (Jn 19:30) because he offered himself once for all (Heb 7:27). There is no need to offer sacrifices daily because Jesus took care of all of that with the sacrifice of himself (Heb 10:11-14).

Finally, papal infallibility makes Roman Catholicism into a cult. The power of the pope to define doctrine ex cathedra, thus binding all Roman Catholics to that teaching for all time, is too much power to vest in one man. This is nothing less than an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture in faith and practice.

I’m not a Protestant out of mere preference, as James White suggests many are. I understand the theological issues that divide us from Roman Catholics. Ultimately, I know that Catholics aren’t saved because of what Rome teaches, but in spite of what Rome teaches.


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Liturgy, Mariology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Transubstaniation

A Brief Response to Kelly **UPDATED**

5 12 2007

Deus Caritas Est (25 Dec 2005)

Spe Salvi (30 Nov 2007)

I’m acting as secretary for the Vatican. See, I hate to read long articles while sitting at my computer screen. So I try to print them out if I can. The Vatican’s website didn’t have a very printable version of the Pope’s encyclicals, so I decided to make a Microsoft Word copy of the documents. For the benefit of my readers, I am making them available for download.

I knew that we’d see backlash from the atheist community when the Pope not only slammed atheism in the encyclical (see also here and here), and he blamed it for the worst tragedies of the 20th century. Kelly from the Rational Response Squad has offered a typical atheist reply. She plays all of the usual cards: the Inquisition card, the Crusades card, and the This-Doesn’t-Prove-God-Either-Way-So-Neener-Neener card.

Kelly does make a very good point. Historically, religious violence accounts for the vast majority of tragedies. She also states that violence committed by atheists was not committed for an atheistic agenda, but as a way to eliminate religious idealogues in order to strengthen the control of the government over the people. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 1 Comment »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Papacy, Roman Catholicism

New Hymn to Mary?

2 12 2007

Now I really can’t wait to read the new encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI.  Apparently, there is a new hymn to Mary:

At the conclusion of his encyclical released today, Pope Benedict honored Mary as our model of hope and asked for her intercession in showing us the way to the Father.

Using a title for Mary used for over a thousand years, the Holy Father explained how the “Star of the Sea” is our model for hope on our earthly journey.  He described the dark, turbulent waters that we face in life and the need to have a star as a guide to follow the route.

“Certainly, Jesus Christ is the true light, the sun that has risen above all the shadows of history.  But to reach him we also need lights close by – people who shine with his light and so guide us along our way.  Who more than Mary could be a star of hope for us?” (source)

This is going to be an interesting read.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Mariology, Papacy, Roman Catholicism

Pope Benedict Releases New Encyclical

2 12 2007

The pope has released a new encyclical entitled Spe Salvi, which is a theological reflection upon hope.  Here is the summary (another one here) from Catholic News Agency.  I am going to read the entire document and comment as soon as I get time.

For now, the Pope’s introduction interests me:

According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given. Redemption is offered to us in the sense that we have been given hope, trustworthy hope, by virtue of which we can face our present: the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads towards a goal, if we can be sure of this goal, and if this goal is great enough to justify the effort of the journey. Now the question immediately arises: what sort of hope could ever justify the statement that, on the basis of that hope and simply because it exists, we are redeemed? And what sort of certainty is involved here?

See, I have a problem with the first sentence.  If salvation isn’t a given, and redemption is only offered to us as a trustworthy hope, then what of Paul’s firm statement in Romans 8:38-39?  No, Paul was certain of salvation the same as any Christian can be sure of his own eternal security.  That immovable certainty is what we are talking about, in answer to the Pope’s final question.

I agree with the Pope’s statement that the present, harrowing though it may be, is livable if we are working toward something.  And the goal of being with God more than justifies the effort of our journey in this life.  The only hope I can think of that would justify bearing this fallen world is certainty–a certainty found in a true contextual understanding of “hope” in the Bible, not in the “hope” of the modern world.

I hope the rest of the encyclical is stronger than the introduction.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Papacy, Roman Catholicism

Infallibly Defined–On Two Lists out of Four

23 11 2007

In my previous post, I examined the verses that appeared on all four of Steve Ray’s lists of infallibly defined verses according to the Roman Catholic Church. In this post, I will take a quick look at two verses which appear on two of the lists, Matthew 16:16-19 and Matthew 26:26-28 et. al. with 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

Before I look at those verses, I thought that I would point out that the Catholic interpretations of these verses neglect the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:4-5).

Matthew 16:16-19

The massive debate over this verse is centered around whether the “rock” is Peter, or his confession of Christ as the messiah.

The New Testament seems to assume that all believers are a holy priesthood (1 Pet 2:4-5).   Given that there is only one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), and all believers are baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13), it is unlikely that the apostles were made special priests.  Instead, all believers were made ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6).

See a longer argument here.

Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

It isn’t much of a surprise that Jesus’ exact words were recored in the gospels, given that they are biographies of His life.  Paul repeats the key phrases “This is my body . . . This is my blood” in his first letter to the Corinthians.

But the larger context of 1 Corinthians 11 is rules and order for spiritual worship, not a theological treatise on the body and blood of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist.  Therefore, it is unlikely that either Paul or any of the gospel writers were attempting to validate transubstantiation.

Moreover, interpreting these verses literally then asks us to interpret John 6:53-57 literally:

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. . . .”

But reading that passage literally fails to take verse 63 in to account: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (emphasis added).

Defining the verses this way seems to be self-defeating.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Bible Thoughts, Papacy, Roman Catholicism, Transubstaniation

« Previous Entries