Category: The Church

From teenage terrorist, to married man, to a late-vocation seminarian, Shane Paul O’Doherty’s story shows that radical Pauline conversions are not merely biblical tales but still happen even in this day and age:

"Before [Shane Paul O’Doherty’s] arrest, he’d become the most wanted man in Britain, a hero for the Irish Republican Army whose letter-bomb campaign had maimed a dozen people and terrorized all of London. We had walked the streets of Derry, his hometown. At that time [of his previous interview with the journalist Kevin Cullen], we paused at the rooming house for British soldiers where he had planted his first bomb in 1970, when he was 15. We passed the spot in the Bogside where Barney McGuigan’s brains spilled out onto the pavement on Bloody Sunday in 1972, when British paratroopers shot and killed 14 civil rights demonstrators. We walked by the apartment in Crawford Square that O’Doherty used as a bomb factory, the one that blew up, killing Ethel Lynch, his 22-year-old assistant.

"He was given his middle name because he was born on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul [January 25], who was a zealous killer of Christians before his own conversion on the road to Damascus. But O’Doherty’s story is not about a miraculous religious conversion as much as a gradual spiritual evolution. He had a tug of war with God, and God won. His odyssey, from teenage revolutionary to middle-age seminarian, is a story of redemption.

"’Hell,’ he says, shrugging. ‘If I can be saved, anyone can.’"

GET THE STORY.

… or, "When I decided to move on with my life."

John Allen, Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, mentions in his weekly "Word from Rome" column (July 29) a story on which he is working that discusses where the "We Are Church" movement is ten years after its founding in April 1995 in the kitchen of a high school religion teacher:

"I was in Innsbruck, Austria, this week, for a story concerning the 10th anniversary of the ‘We Are Church’ movement, the most serious effort at a liberal Catholic reform movement in recent memory. It was born in April 1995 in the Innsbruck kitchen of a high school religion teacher named Thomas Plankensteiner, who went on to become the public face of the campaign.

"Today Plankensteiner is a schools inspector in the Tyrol region of Austria, disengaged from church activism. His story offers a metaphor for why ecclesiastical insurgencies so often lose steam — Plankensteiner grew weary of waiting for things to happen, and decided to get on with his life."

GET THE STORY.

Would that all those agitating for "reforms" that the Church has declared to be impossible (e.g., women’s ordination, artificial birth control) would give in, give up, and get on with their lives.

What’s the Vatican’s annual budget?

In the last annum it was 202,581,446 euros, which is about 242 million dollars. That’s good, because total income was 205,663,266 euros (246 million dollars), which means that they were 4 million dollars in the black (after several years of being in the red).

While the Holy See has a lot of non-monetary assets (buildings, for example), its actual budget is fairly small. For example, back in 2002 the budget for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles was $600 million dollars (SOURCE). Put another way, the Vatican’s 2004 budget was only the size of 35 Catholic Answerses.

Where does the money go?

"A large part of the expenditure," said Cardinal Sebastiani, "is made up of the expenses of dicasteries and organizations of the Roman Curia which assist, each in its own way, the Roman Pontiff in his pastoral service to the Universal Church and to the particular Churches. … A total of 2,663 people work in the Roman Curia, of whom 759 are ecclesiastics, 346 religious and 1,558 lay people. Pensioners number 1,429."

GET THE STORY.

A reader writes:

I had heard a show where it was discussed that the
Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus established.

This is true.

That the Catholic Church is the only Church that can
be traced back to the succession of Bishops and St.
Peter.

This is also true.

But can the Catholic Church state that it is the only
Church that will provide a path to Heaven?

If one knows the truth about the Catholic Church, then yes. In the words of Vatican II:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved [Lumen Gentium 14].

If one knows that the Catholic Church is made necessary by Christ and one refuses to enter it then one is refusing to accept salvation on Christ’s terms and so is refusing to accept salvation. In this sense the Catholic Church is the only Church that provides a path to heaven.

This does not mean that the same standard applies to those who are innocently unaware of the necessity of the Catholic Church. For those who are innocently unaware of this fact, it is possible for them to be saved if they otherwise respond to God’s grace.

Is Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit not present in
Churches of other denominations?

Yes, they are, in the sense just mentioned. For those who are not aware of the necessity of being Catholic, God works with them where they are and graciously makes it possible for them to be saved. Because they are not in the Catholic Church, however, their salvation is more risky than finding salvation is when one has the full means of grace available in the Catholic Church.

I ask because it seems that the Apostles sent letters
to many churches in their time. Did they become
Catholic or did they remain Christian?

Catholics are the original kind of Christians. All other forms of Christians split off (directly or indirectly) from the Catholic Church. The original churches to which the apostles sent their letters were part of the Catholic Church, though this term may not have been in general use at the time the letters were sent. (It entered general use in the second half of the first century.)

In Revelations …
16 I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these
things in the churches. I am the root and stock of
David, the bright and morning star. This from the
Douay-Rheims Bible. This seems to imply that there is
more than one Church that this will be spread amongst.

Yes, it does. The verse you quote (Revelation 22:16) does refer to local churches (specifically, those in Asia Minor; see Revelation 1:4). Again, these were local churches that were part of the one, worldwide Catholic Church.

The word "Church" is used in Scripture in two different senses. On the one hand, it is used to refer to individual local congregations (the sense in which Revelatin 22:16 uses it). On the other hand, it is used to refer to the worldwide communion of these churches in union with St. Peter (or, today, his successor). This is the sense in which Jesus uses the term when he says:

You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church [singular] (Matthew 16:18).

 

There are many local churches that are part of the worldwide Catholic Church, but there is a single, worldwide communion of Churches that Jesus founded on St. Peter. That worldwide communion is the Catholic Church.

I was raised Catholic by adoption. I believe in the
foundation of the faith, lately I have struggled with
my faith in the Catholic Church. I do not think I need
to explain why.

I assume that you may be referring to the recent sex-abuse crisis in the American part of the Catholic Church. It is understandable that this posed challenges for the faith of many, but we must recognize that Christ’s teachings and promises remain true even when individual humans are untrue to them. . . . as we all are when we fall into sin.

I can point you to more resources on both the subject of the Catholic Church and the sex-abuse crisis if you wish.

I hope this helps!

 

A reader writes:

I had heard a show where it was discussed that the

Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus established.

This is true.

That the Catholic Church is the only Church that can

be traced back to the succession of Bishops and St.

Peter.

This is also true.

But can the Catholic Church state that it is the only

Church that will provide a path to Heaven?

If one knows the truth about the Catholic Church, then yes. In the words of Vatican II:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved [Lumen Gentium 14].

If one knows that the Catholic Church is made necessary by Christ and one refuses to enter it then one is refusing to accept salvation on Christ’s terms and so is refusing to accept salvation. In this sense the Catholic Church is the only Church that provides a path to heaven.

This does not mean that the same standard applies to those who are innocently unaware of the necessity of the Catholic Church. For those who are innocently unaware of this fact, it is possible for them to be saved if they otherwise respond to God’s grace.

Is Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit not present in

Churches of other denominations?

Yes, they are, in the sense just mentioned. For those who are not aware of the necessity of being Catholic, God works with them where they are and graciously makes it possible for them to be saved. Because they are not in the Catholic Church, however, their salvation is more risky than finding salvation is when one has the full means of grace available in the Catholic Church.

I ask because it seems that the Apostles sent letters

to many churches in their time. Did they become

Catholic or did they remain Christian?

Catholics are the original kind of Christians. All other forms of Christians split off (directly or indirectly) from the Catholic Church. The original churches to which the apostles sent their letters were part of the Catholic Church, though this term may not have been in general use at the time the letters were sent. (It entered general use in the second half of the first century.)

In Revelations …

16 I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these

things in the churches. I am the root and stock of

David, the bright and morning star. This from the

Douay-Rheims Bible. This seems to imply that there is

more than one Church that this will be spread amongst.

Yes, it does. The verse you quote (Revelation 22:16) does refer to local churches (specifically, those in Asia Minor; see Revelation 1:4). Again, these were local churches that were part of the one, worldwide Catholic Church.

The word "Church" is used in Scripture in two different senses. On the one hand, it is used to refer to individual local congregations (the sense in which Revelatin 22:16 uses it). On the other hand, it is used to refer to the worldwide communion of these churches in union with St. Peter (or, today, his successor). This is the sense in which Jesus uses the term when he says:

You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church [singular] (Matthew 16:18).

 

There are many local churches that are part of the worldwide Catholic Church, but there is a single, worldwide communion of Churches that Jesus founded on St. Peter. That worldwide communion is the Catholic Church.

I was raised Catholic by adoption. I believe in the

foundation of the faith, lately I have struggled with

my faith in the Catholic Church. I do not think I need

to explain why.

I assume that you may be referring to the recent sex-abuse crisis in the American part of the Catholic Church. It is understandable that this posed challenges for the faith of many, but we must recognize that Christ’s teachings and promises remain true even when individual humans are untrue to them. . . . as we all are when we fall into sin.

I can point you to more resources on both the subject of the Catholic Church and the sex-abuse crisis if you wish.

I hope this helps!

 

The man with the best name in the college of cardinals (or the worst name, depending on how you look at it) has passed: Cardinal Sin has died. He was 76 years old.

Though under the age 80 cutoff for voting in conclaves, Cardinal Sin was too ill to make the ourney to Rome to participate in the election of Benedict XVI last April. Now he has followed John Paul II into the Great Beyond.

Cardinal Sin was an important figure in the effort to cultivate democracy and better government in the Philippines, though the road was rough.

After the fall of the dictator Marcos, government corruption remained high. "We got rid of Ali Baba, but the forty thieves remained," Cardinal Sin commented.

Requiescat in pacem.

GET THE STORY.

MORE.

B16’s fellow countryman, Cardinal Kasper, is proposing a synod of reunion with the Orthodox and an alliance with Protestants against the secularism raging in Europe.

EXCERPTS:

 

The Vatican representative for ecumenism proposed a synod of reconciliation to the Orthodox and an alliance with the offspring of the Protestant Reformation to rediscover the Christian roots of Europe.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, made the proposals Wednesday when addressing the Italian National Eucharistic Congress.

The cardinal was joined in the ceremony by Orthodox Archbishop Kirill of Yaroslavl and Rostov of the Moscow Patriarchate, and Lutheran Bishop Eero Huovinen of Helsinki, Finland.

Cardinal Kasper began his address by recalling that in Bari a synod of Greek and Latin bishops took place in 1098.

"Why not hope that here, in Bari, 1,000 years after the synod of 1098, in 2098 — and why not before? We might again celebrate a synod of Greek and Latin bishops, a synod of reconciliation," he said.

GET THE STORY.

(NOTE TO SELF: Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . . to refer to . . . head of Pontificial Commission for Promoting Christian Unity . . . as . . . "Kasper the Friendly Cardinal." . . . Must . . . Reistst . . . )

A reader writes:

I hope you will answer my question concerning the uses of Holy Water.  I to like have and use holy water at home.  So when I travel I like to pick up holy water from different churches.  Its a nice way to visit other churches, the priest, parisherners and to collect holy water.

Recently I was in my home town.  There is more than one chuch in this particular city.  I went to one particular church there and I was
very much disappointed in the way I was treated because I wanted holy water.  Never in all the years I have been catholic, and I am cradle born have I been so disppointed by the way I was treated by the church secretary and even the deacon himself because I wanted holy water.  I was told that they had found that people were using holy water for sacriliege purposes.  Upon hearing that I  didn’t know whether to cry or laugh.  I could understand  a secretary being ignorant to the use of Holy Water but I can’t understand the ignorance of a church deacon.    They even had the nerve to ask me if that was my intended purpose.

My question is, Can holy water be use sacrilegiously?  My mind, heart and soul says "No Way!"
Well eventually I did get my holy water but not after I had recieved the third degree.  I finally had to ask, Are you going to deny me taking holy water from this church? I had to ask three times.  Each time they said no but they were not too happy because I wanted holy water.  I don’t understand.  I was really confounded by their behavior.

You certain encountered a very unusual circumstance and it’s understandable that you’d feel confused and disappointed.

It is at least possible for a person to use holy water–or any sacramental–for a sacreligious purpose. For example, an evil cult might take some and (God forbid) use it mockingly in ceremonies worshipping the devil or something.

Hypothetically, the local parish may hae turned up such a group–or perhaps just a couple of rebellious teenagers–using it for a genuinely sacreligious purpose.

I also wonder if there might have been a communications problem here. It also is possible for people to use holy water superstitiously–as if God were definitely going to use it to accomplish certain miracles or as if it had magical powers or needed to be used in all kinds of circumstances where it doesn’t. It is much easier for me to imagine people using holy water supertitiously than sacreligiously.

If the parish staff–including the deacon–were not used to having folks show up and ask for holy water and someone showed up and asked for a significant quantity, they may have wondred–out of a misplaced and possibly puritanical sense of zeal–wondered whether it would be used superstitiously, even if not sacreligiously. The deacon might have then misspoke and said "sacreligious" when he meant "superstitious."

I don’t know that this is the explanation. It’s just conjecture. But it’s something that might lead to the kind of unfortunate experience you had.

Now that the rumor has been proven accurate that Pope Benedict XVI has tapped Archbishop William J. Levada to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican correspondent John L. Allen Jr. of the <shudder>National Catholic Reporter</shudder> has some helpful analysis on the possible reasons Abp. Levada was offered the job:

"Why Levada?

"First, he has a solid theological background. He wrote his doctoral thesis in theology at Rome’s Gregorian University under the direction of Jesuit Fr. Francis Sullivan, widely regarded as one of the best minds in ecclesiology of the 20th century. The subject of Levada’s dissertation was ‘The Infallible Church Magisterium and the Natural Moral Law,’ examining how the magisterium understands natural law, and especially its binding force. Levada reviewed a range of theological opinions and drew what one observer described as ‘balanced, judicious’ conclusions. Given the way that moral questions, especially on sexual issues and biotechnology, are among the most contentious matters the doctrinal congregation handles, it’s a background that would serve Levada well.

"At the same time, because Levada has not spent his career as a professional theologian, he has not developed a deep specialization in any one area. A theologian in Rome described him as a very capable ‘general practitioner.’

"Jesuit Fr. Gerald O’Collins at the Gregorian, who remembers Levada as an industrious doctoral candidate, said that Levada now phones him to keep tabs on his own men.

"’He keeps in touch,’ O’Collins said. ‘He says, "How is he doing?" … I feel it kind of encourages the student to finish, because the archbishop needs him back.’

"O’Collins described Levada as ‘an extremely decent human being.’"

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to the reader who mentioned Allen’s column in a post comment down yonder.)

Recently I posted a scan of Matthew 16:18 from the Pshitta, the standard Aramaic version of the New Testament.

I circled the word kepha the two times it appeared, so that folks could see with the own eyes (even if you don’t read the script) that in this version Jesus does say "You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church."

Fine and dandy.

But afterwards I was looking at the verse and translating mentally and I noticed something else that was interesting.

Y’know how in the latter part of the verse in traditional English translations Jesus says "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Well, in Greek what he says is "the gates of hades" will not prevail against it, which some modern translations have also picked up on.

The distinction is significant because in contemporary English the word "hell" means one thing: the place of the damned. That’s not the case in older dialects of English (e.g., the one in use when the Douay-Rheims and King James versions were translated). In that day, "hell" could mean the same things as "hades," which in Greek simply refers to the place of the dead, not specifically the place of the damned. ("Netherworld" might be a good English translation since that doesn’t indicate specifically where the damned go.)

The Hebrew equivalent of hades is sh’ol, which also just refers to the place of the dead.

(You may have seen this word spelled sheol, but this is bad because it leads English-speakers to want to pronounce it /SHEEE-ol/, which is wrong. The /e/ is only a half-vowel. The spelling sh’ol gives you a much better sense of the correct pronunciation, /sh-OL/. Same deal with Pshitta being spelled Peshitta. Makes English speakers want to say /PESH-it-ta/ when it’s really /p-SHEET-ta/.)

So what caught my eye was this: In the Pshitta, Jesus says the gates "of sh’ol" will not prevail against it. Here’s the text again with this word circled as well (the one on the third line):

The character that is on the front of this word (this script is read right-to-left, remember) is a prepositional prefix that means "of" (as in "of sh’ol"), but I’ve circled the word for sh’ol itself (which is here spelled sh-y-o-l in Aramaic).

Cool, huh?