Another Letter to the Editor

UPDATE: In my response to the below letter, I said, "Likewise, the Vatican does not invest in real estate." This, I have just learned, is quite wrong; the Vatican does invest in real estate. I apologize for my error.

On 6 August 2008, the Effingham Daily News published a Letter to the Editor from Harold Kaufman, titled, "Politics vs. worship." It reads as follows:

Many of the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church have developed the policy and practice of denying the Eucharist to certain pro-choice politicians in order to achieve a political objective. The bishops hope this practice will eventually lead to the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will then be disposed to overturning the established law that permits a woman to choose. The public humiliation and embarrassment the politician suffers in front of the congregation will instill in the parishioners who are present a powerful message that is designed to strongly influence them to vote for a particular political party.

The approach the church is taking to try to bring political change to solve the problem of abortion is shortsighted and counterproductive. Although this approach does ingratiate the church into the fold of the Republican Party, this ingratiation by the church has helped to bring about dire consequences to our country and its citizens for the past eight years. A list of these dire consequences would be much too long to cite in this letter.

The Catholic Church and other like-minded Christian denominations need to develop more creative and realistic programs to help the pregnant mother and the father to choose life. The church tries to put the burden of abortion on the politician and Supreme Court justices. This strategy diverts attention away from the responsibility the church has in developing more programs to help the individual pregnant mothers and fathers to choose life. Over the past several years, the Catholic Church has spent a billion or so dollars to court decisions that involved sexual abuse. What a tremendous saving change this money could have achieved if it hasd been spent helping to reduce the number or abortions.

The Catholic Church has many collections that are gathered to deal with myriads of problems society faces, but I know of no collection that is taken up for the specific purpose of helping to reduce the number of abortions. Perhaps the church needs to put its money where its mouth is and discontinue to insist politicians are somehow in a position to magically solve the moral problem of abortion.

Many church leaders insist the paramount issue the voter must consider when voting is the issue of abortion. By the same token, should't many of these same church leaders sak the question, "Should I spend this money to help reduce the number of abortions or should I spend it for some other purpose?" Many church leaders spend millions on questionable church building projects. The pope is said to wear Prada. The Vatican routinely invests billions in real estate and other investments. Where is the paramount issue of abortion when the church itself seems to put abortion on such a low priority within its own organization.

One of the few times Christ showed a hint of anger took place when he drove the money changers out of the temple, a place reserved for worship. What would Christ do if he came to America and saw bishops and priests using the Eucharist as a political tool? Christ would probably advise them in no uncertain terms that political activity should not take place in his church but in the precincts where political activity is appropriate. Parishioners should be encouraged to demand bishops, priests and pastors use their churches as places for worship and not for political purposes. If bishops, priests and pastors continue political activity in a house of worship, then follow Christ's example and drive them out or find a parish or congregation that promotes worship instead of politics.

My response, submitted today, follows:

It is a false dichotomy to pit worship and politics against each other as if they were mutually exclusive, as in the title of Mr. Harold Kaufman’s recent Letter to the Editor published in the Effingham Daily News 6 August 2008.

Because worship involves faith and faith affects every aspect of the believer’s life, faith necessarily bears on politics. The Church involves herself in political affairs only in so far as political actions have moral consequences.

Mr. Kaufman criticizes the United States Bishops’ enforcement of the universal law of the Church in regards to Catholics who support abortion. It has always been the teaching of the Church that those who support abortion are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, especially if doing so would cause scandal to the faithful, as is the case of such politicians.

Mr. Kaufman wrongly asserts that such a position aims at the appointment of Justices who will repeal Roe versus Wade. While this would be a most welcome move, withholding Holy Communion from those in “obstinate, grave sin” (canon 915) is a medicinal discipline to help such a person see the error of his ways and return to the truth as taught by Christ, not a political ploy. If such a politician is “embarrassed” by the action of the Church, it is because he or she presents him or herself for Holy Communion fully aware that he or she cannot receive it. This is not about coercing a politician for vote with one party or another but to embrace the truth of the dignity of every human life. If one party claims to respect life and another does not, this is not the fault of the Church. Mr. Kaufman would do well to recall that at one time the Democratic party supported life and the Republican party did not; the parties have both changed their stance on abortion and the right to life.

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a violation of the Fifth Commandment: “you shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17). Such a stance is nothing new and certainly has nothing to do with political views; it is a recognition of the truth. The ancient teaching of the Apostles, recorded in the Didache (written between A.D. 90 and 120), reinforces this: “You shall not kill an unborn child or murder an infant” (2.2).

It has also been the constant teaching of the Church that those who do not share the same faith as the Church should not be admitted to Holy Communion because they are not, in fact, in communion with her. The Apostolic Tradition (written before A.D. 150) states: “Let the one who objects be rejected”” (8.32). This reflects the teaching of Saint Paul: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (I Corinthians 11:27ff). This teaching of the Apostle echoes the command of Jesus: “Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6).

The words of Saint Jerome seem apropos here: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” Mr. Kaufman would do well to read the Scriptures in their entirety, before incorrectly citing one verse to defend his position. He should take a new look at the verse he cites and read it in context.

To receive Holy Communion is to say “Amen,” that is, “I believe,” to all that the Church teaches as coming from the Lord Jesus, including what concerns the moral life.

Mr. Kaufman seems unaware of the Church’s vast efforts to assist those facing an abortion and those who have experienced the tragedy of abortion. How many crisis pregnancy centers have been established by Catholics who continue to support them? How many of the faithful pray daily the unborn? How many men and women have entered new religious communities, such as the Sisters for Life and the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, who dedicate their lives to the service of the unborn? How many women and men have been assisted after an abortion through Project Rachel? These are just a few of the Church’s apostolates in this regard.

To suggest that the Catholic Church only seeks to end abortion through politics is ludicrous. While we agree with Mr. Kaufman that more can and should be done, the Church already puts great effort and prayer into the cause for a respect of all human life, born and unborn.

We should also note the Pope does not wear Prada and never has, as Mr. Kaufman suggests. Likewise, the Vatican does not invest in real estate. Before leveling such false accusations, Mr. Kaufman should investigate the facts of the matter.

Mr. Kaufman suggests that the Church takes up no collection to help end abortion. Perhaps he should investigate more closely how Catholic Charities, and other Catholic groups, spend the monies they receive and raise.

I would challenge Mr. Kaufman to demonstrate how simply spending more money will end abortion. It is not money that will end abortion but the turning of hearts to a recognition of the reality of sin and toward the love of God and neighbor. Money cannot do this.

I'm quite surprised

I've just finished speaking with the Editor (the publisher is on vacation) of the Effingham Daily News.

I called to discuss last night's Letter to the Editor. I view this letter as libelous against me and against the Catholic Church and everyone that I have spoken with and read the letter views it in the same letter.

The Editor strongly denies and when asked if I were to write a similar letter regarding a Protestant denomination, she would not say if she would publish the letter, skirting around it by saying the letters are "opinions."

At one point she told me if I wanted to pursue the libel I would have to do so in a different way. I asked that way would be and she told me I should speak with a lawyer.

Very well. I will.

I'm quite shocked she actually told me to call a lawyer. And I don't expect she'll publish my response.

If you're in the area reading this and think Mr. N.'s most recent letter was indeed libelous, would you mind dropping a note to the Editor at:

Effingham Daily News
201 North Banker Street
Effingham, Illinois 62401

EDN allows anti-Catholic to speak again

Demonstrating once again its anti-Catholic bias, the Effingham Daily News published tonight another letter attacking the Catholic Church and me:

Where is the authority?

A recent EDN letter by Daren Zehnle [sic] (Feb. 27) claims I made several errors regarding fasting, even suggesting I claim fasting is sin and that Jesus is a liar. Obviously he did not read my entire letter. In the Feb. 6, 2008, EDN [sic] an article titled “Today is start of Lenten season …” Zehnle states “It’s a time we focus on our sins to prepare for Easter. …Ash Wednesday is a day Catholics fast, abstain from meat …” It appears many area churchgoers do observe holy or non-holy special days, weeks and seasons, even suggesting the Holy Spirit directs their hearts and minds to follow these observances.

First of all, the Holy Spirit does not direct us to appose [sic] Scripture (Galatians 4:1-10) but to remember them (John 14:23-26). Those lead [sic] by the Spirit are lead [sic] to obey the words of God (Acts 7:51-53, I Thess. 4:1-8, I John 3:24). If you hear a voice that instructs you to do things not authorized by God, that voice is not the Holy Spirit.

Zehnle suggests that I Timothy 4:1-5 is talking about “the dietary laws of Judaism.” I agree the “dietary laws of Judaism” would be included in the category of “foods created by God.” So under the new covenant there is no restriction that binds any Christian from eating any “foods created by God.” Celibacy and restricting foods on certain days are manmade traditions. But notice in verse 1 who is giving the warning to those who want to abstain. It is the Holy Spirit.

There is no command in Scripture for everyone to fast, just as there in [sic] no command for everyone to be married. However, should one decide to fast (or become married) there are restrictions and examples for us to use. In Matthew 6:16-18, fasting is a secret thing between you and God. You are not to be noticed by others. In Mathew 9:14-15, the disciples did not fast while Jesus was with them. Fasting is not a commandment or Jesus would not have excused them from it. Jesus says they will someday but, once again, does not command them to do so.

Zehnle states Catholic rules for fasting as: “Those between the ages of 18 and 59 are supposed to eat only one full meal, which can be supplemented by two smaller meals. However the smaller meals should be less than the full meal… Wednesdays and Fridays only and not Tuesdays and Thursdays.” [Here, Mr. Antrim has combined two very separate quotes.]

Fasting is not eating a different meal today than yesterday, rearranging meals, restricting ages or restricting certain days. If fasting consists of these things, then Jesus himself violated them. How did Jesus fast? In Luke 4:1-2, “Jesus ate nothing during those days.”

The scriptures are completely silent in establishing a resurrection feast for Christians. A point in which Zehnle suggests is “simply false.” Read the observance written in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:14-29. Now look at Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. It is a remembrance of “the Lord’s death,” of Christ’s sacrifice. Not one of the accounts even mentions the resurrection, including the references listed by Zehnle.

Zehnle notes: “The reason Jesus said the Pharisees worshipped in “vain” [sic] was not because they followed the law but because they did not follow the law in their hearts (Mk 7:1-13). We know this because elsewhere he commands the Pharisees be listened to (cf. Mt 23:2).”

Read the entire chapters of Mark 7 and Matthew 23. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for adding their traditions to the law. Where is the proviso for ceremonially washing your hands, sitting at places of honor, widening collars and putting tassels on their robes, callings themselves Father or Reverend or even leader (for there is only one leader and that is Christ)? All of these things would be a signs [sic] of the apostate (those who have fallen away). Jesus taught the Jews to listen to the Pharisees as long as they where [sic] teaching the word of God and not to accept the traditions of the Pharisees. The same applies to us today (Romans 13:1-13). We are not subject to those things which are not written in, modified or have been added to the word of God. (Deuteronomy 4:2, Revelation 22:18-19).

But that brings up once again the intent of my letter. Where is your authority for the special days, weeks or seasons? It is the total and blatant disregard of the word of God and the outright observance of manmade traditions and celebrations Jesus speaks out against (Matthew 15:7-9). Do you then say Jesus was “spouting off”?

My response follows:

Another response to Antrim

In his recent Letter to Editor, “Where is the authority?”, published in the Effingham Daily News 25 March 2008, Mr. N. – whom the EDN routinely allows to attack the Catholic Church through his libelous - is correct on one point: his issues with the Catholic Church rest upon the question of authority.

Mr. N. believes it rests with his own interpretation of the Scriptures (since he shows that he believes no one else has an authentic interpretation of the Scriptures). Of such personal interpretation, Peter says, “there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation” (II Peter 1:21). Mr. N. even suggests that he knows how the Holy Spirit directs the hearts and minds of believers; apparently the Holy Spirit will not inspire believers to fast even though he inspired Paul and the disciples to fast.

A sincere investigation will find that Jesus Christ gave his authority to the Twelve Apostles who entrusted this authority to their chosen successors, who entrusted it to their successors and so on until today.

This authority is found in the Catholic Church, which alone can claim its historical and theological roots in Jesus Christ and the Apostles, to whom he entrusted the power of binding and loosing, and hence his own authority and, hence, his own authority (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. See also John 20:23 and Luke 13:20).

Mr. N. claims that Catholics have a “blatant disregard of the word of God.” Seeing that I have given Scriptural supports for the claims of the Catholic Church he has wrongly attacked, there is no credence in his claim.

In his most recent letter, Mr. N. fails to refute our supports for fasting, so I will simply direct him again to our previous letter on this topic and will say nothing more on this topic, other than to point out that the “rules” for fasting are a “minimum standard.” The faithful are encouraged to fast as did Paul and the disciples, as we pointed out in our recent letter.

Mr. N. claims that “under the new covenant there is no restriction that binds any Christian from eating any ‘foods created by God.’” He is incorrect. The Council of Jerusalem forbids “the meat of strangled animals” (Acts 15:20).

He then somehow connects celibacy with fasting, saying, “Celibacy and restricting foods on certain days are manmade traditions.” Again, he is incorrect. If all of Scripture is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit then fasting must also be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What is more, Paul, a celibate, says of sexuality, “I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God” (I Corinthians 7:8). Jesus himself says that some “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12). Clearly, celibacy comes from God.

Mr. N. wrongly asserts the Scriptures do not establish a memorial of the Resurrection. Paul says of the Eucharist, “you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes” (I Corinthians 11:26). If the Lord is not risen from the dead he cannot come again.

Now to his new attack (I wondered when this one would come): If Jesus intended his warning to “call no man father” (or teacher) as a literal absolute then anyone who calls their male progenitor “dad” also violates this command. Furthermore, if Jesus had forbidden all use of the word “father” as an address to a man he would have stripped the same word as applied to God of all meaning.

But this cannot be the case, for the word “father” is applied to several men in the New Testament as, for example, when Stephen calls Abraham “our father” (Acts 7:2) and Paul says the same of Isaac (Romans 9:10). Did Stephen and Paul violate Christ’s command?

Likewise, Paul says Jesus appointed him “a teacher” (I Timothy 2:7) and that Christ designated teachers in the Church (cf. I Corinthians 12:28). Did Jesus violate his own command?

Taking Jesus’ words in this regard absolutely literally would even mean that we could call no one “Doctor” (the Latin word for “teacher”) or Mister [Mr.] or Mistress [Mrs.] (a form of “master”).

Jesus’ condemnation is not of titles but of arrogance, which is always demonstrated by anyone who refuses to listen to another. Jesus used strong exaggeration to make his point, as he did when he command, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out” (Matthew 5:29).

Paul repeatedly shows his spiritual fatherhood of those under his spiritual guidance, most notably of Timothy (cf. I Corinthians 4:17; I Timothy 1:2, 18; II Timothy 1:2, 2:1; Philippians 2:22; and Titus 1:2). He says of Onesimus, “whose father I have become” (Philemon 10). To the Corinthians he says, “I have become your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (I Corinthians 4:14-15). Peter calls Mark “my son” (I Peter 5:13) and John calls the Christians to whom he writes, “dear little children” (I John 2:1) and he writes “to you, fathers” (I John 2:13).

Catholics recognize the importance and value of spiritual fatherhood and so address priests as “Father.” No amount of anti-Catholic bigotry can change the reality of spiritual fatherhood as attested to in the Scriptures under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If Mr. N. disagrees with me he should write to me personally, not to the local newspaper. I answer his letters publicly because a public attack must, in justice, be publicly repudiated.

This is the same Mr. N. who has written several letters attacking the Catholic faith on saints (my response), Ash Wednesday and Lent (my response included in link), and salvation and succession (my response included in link).

Tomorrow, the publisher of the Effingham Daily News will hear from me. Two months ago, I wrote to him once and left three voice messages asking him to contact me. He has yet to call or write. He had best contact me by the end of the week.

How this particular writer's letter is not libelous against me or the Church is beyond me.

Your comments are welcome.

Another Letter to the Editor

The Effingham Daily News published the following Letter to the Editor in Saturday's edition:

Cardboard Christians

Easter. The churches are celebrating Easter this weekend, four weeks before God said to celebrate it. Once again, the church is following the doctrines of men rather than the commands of God. Passover is always on the 15th day of the first month of Nissan, that is Sunday, April 20, this year. Easter, the Feast of First Fruits,” begins that evening. The religious will say, what’s the difference? It’s a big difference to God. Yeshua (Jesus) tells the church leaders in Matt. 15:3, “And why do you yourselves reject the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” He goes on to say in verses 7-9, “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me. For they worship me in vain, rejecting God’s commands and replacing them with the doctrines of men.”

The Lord says in John 4:23, “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be his worshippers.”

God said through His prophet Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Churches, now you know, so if you continue to follow the doctrines of men rather than the commands of God, you are knowingly and willingly disobeying God. The choice is yours. These are not my words, I am only repeating God’s words. At the Messiah Training Center, we are dedicated to teaching the way, the truth and the life as the Lord taught His disciples, teaching the “SECRETS” of the Kingdom of God. We welcome all questions and comments. You can contact us at therevelationarythevoiceofthelord@hotmail.com.

You'll recall that I've addressed similar questions here. My reply to this particular letter follows:

The Date of Easter

In a recent letter to the Effingham Daily News published 21 March 2008, Mr. N. incorrectly suggests Easter is celebrated “four weeks before God said to celebrate it” and that “the church is following the doctrines of men rather the commands of God.”

In the first few centuries Easter was celebrated the day after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan, close to the celebration of Passover but not coinciding with it, following the lunar calendar of Judaism. The presence of the full moon on this night was seen as symbolic of Christ, the light of the world, whom the darkness has not overcome (see John 8:12 and 1:5).

Naturally, the fourteenth of Nisan usually fell on a weekday. This bothered some who knew that the tomb in which Jesus was laid was found empty “on the first day of the week” (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).

The first day of the week is the day we know as Sunday, the day on which we celebrate Easter, following a decision of the Church in a.d. 325, which in no way contradicts Scripture, but sought the unity of Christians in the celebration of the Resurrection.

Furthermore, the year that Jesus died, the Passover occurred on a Friday (see Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54 and John 19:31). Jesus rose from the dead – according to the Jewish way of reckoning a day beginning at sunset – on Sunday. Therefore the celebration of Easter is not the same as Passover but is its fulfillment for “our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed” (I Corinthians 5:7).

When Jesus condemns the Pharisees – not the “church leaders” as Mr. N. claims – he is not speaking of the celebration of Passover or of Easter but of the practice of claiming to give all of one’s property to the Temple to avoid caring for elderly parents (see Matthew 15:5-9; Exodus 20:12, 21:17; and Deuteronomy 5:16).

The Messiah Training Center purports to teach the “secrets” of the Kingdom of God. Whatever these “secrets” may be, they should be viewed with great suspicion for Jesus says: “I have spoken publicly to the world…and in secret I have said nothing” (John 18:20). Before attempting to discover hidden knowledge historic fact should be sought.

I'm not sure what a "cardboard" Christian is or what it has to do with anything in the letter, but I'll leave that alone.

This Mr. N. is not the same as the last Mr. N., but I suspect they are connected.

My response

What follows is my response to yesterday's Letter to the Editor published in the Effingham Daily News.

What Beatification and Canonization Really Mean

Mr. Michael Antrim’s most recent letter, “Let us speak where the Bible speaks,” published in the Effingham Daily News 8 March 2008 demonstrates a tremendous lack of understanding in Catholic belief. Why the EDN continues to publish such libelous letters is beyond me. Let us clarify a few things for those who are confused.

The word “saint” is derived from the Latin sanctus, meaning “holy;” the word in Greek is hagios. We speak, then, for example, of “holy” Anthony of Padua.

Saint Paul addresses himself “to all the beloved of God in Rome, called to be holy,” making the distinction that not all of the beloved of God are saints yet (Romans 1:7). Simply because we are called to be holy does not mean that each of us lives a holy life. To call a member of the baptized who does not faithfully follow the Gospel a “saint,” that is, “holy,” would be false. Nevertheless, such a person is still called to be a saint.

This distinction is neglected in the letter. Consider someone who believes in and confesses Christ, repents of his sins, is baptized, but does not always walk in the newness of life, but returns to his sins. Though such a person could once have been called holy, can one still be called holy if living in deep sin?

To help inspire us to live holy lives, the Church holds up the example of men and women whom she has canonized and officially declared “Saints,” having found them to have lived holy lives. The lives of these men and women from every way of life show us the many ways that the Gospel can be lived in fidelity; they show us that living the Gospel is possible, even for us.

The word “canonization” comes from the Greek kanon, meaning, “measuring rod.” When the Church proposes a member of the faithful for beatification or canonization, their life is measured against that of Christ. If the person is found to have a lived a holy life then they progress through the various stages of beatification and canonization to be officially declared a Saint and held up as a model for all, following the words of Saint Paul, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (I Corinthians 11:1).

Certainly there are countless men and women who have lived holy lives but have not been officially canonized, measured by the Church against the life of Christ. For this reason the Church celebrates All Saints Day. Nevertheless, the Church recognizes the need for examples of faith and so she proposes certain members of the faithful as true and authentic guides to the Christian life and faith.

The official process of beatification has been tightened, so to speak, to ensure that the men and women who are proposed for beatification did indeed live holy lives and are worthy of imitation. Canonization does not say that the Church makes a saint out of a person who was not already a saint at death. The Church requires a person be dead before the inquiry into their sanctity precisely so the person does not lapse into sin after the process has begun. This is a simple matter of caution.

The letter claims that the Church’s “foundation is Christ (and not Peter and those who follow the teachings of Judaism).” Here is displayed an ignorance of the Catholic Church and a sheer unwillingness to listen to another person, for we have been through this with him before.

The Church was founded by Christ upon Peter; this cannot be refuted (Matthew 16:18).

It ought to be considered that the Church with two thousand years of consistent teaching might know more than one individual. The author of the letter would do well to learn the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church, not what others claim the Church teaches.

If the Bible does not contain the process for canonization as the letter asserts, then the author should follow his own advice and be silent.

A anti-Catholic speaks again

Just when I was beginning to wonder what I might speak about on the radio Monday morning, an item just dropped in my lap.

A man with much presumed knowledge - which is, nonetheless, quite lacking - has taken it upon himself again to write another Letter to the Editor against the Catholic Church.

The letter, filled with falsehoods and libel, was published in yesterday's edition of the Effingham Daily News, showing, yet again, the newspapers anti-Catholic bias.

The letter, titled "Let us speak where the Bible speaks," reads as follows:

In the Feb. 19 edition of the EDN , [sic] the article titled “Sainthood” from the AP in Vatican City announced “the Vatican is making it tougher to become a saint.” Of course, like much of the teachings of the Vatican, the “beatification” process for sainthood is not found in the Holy Bible.

The term “saint” as used in the New Covenant of Christ (the New Testament) refers simply to all Christians. Those who have separated themselves from the world, those who believe in Christ (see Acts9:13, Romans 15:26, Philippians 4:21, 1 [sic] Timothy 5:10 and many more). It refers to both those who are alive and to those who died as Christians.

The Bible never once refers to “saints” as those who have passed the Vatican’s test of sainthood. To be a saint, one must simply believe (Mark 16:16) and confess Christ is the Son of God (Matthew 10:32-33), repent (turn away from) your sins (Luke 13:3) and walk in newness of life (Romans 6:1-4), according to the New Covenant of Christ (Jude 3 :3 [sic]).

According to the article the Vatican’s definition of saint must require you already be dead. The scriptures are quite plain in teaching that if you are not a saint when you pass away that you certainly are not going to become one later (Hebrews 6:4-8).

If you do not believe the “Universal Church of the Vatican” has a problem with adding or taking away from the word of God the “Sainthood” article refers to the “new procedures announced Monday …” [sic]. I fail to correlate these new revelations from Vatican City with the New Covenant pronouncement in Jude 1:3, “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (2 [sic] Thessalonians 2 [sic]).

It is my duty, as well as the duty of the church, whose foundation is Christ (not Peter and those who follow the teachings of Judaism) (I Corinthians 3 :11 [sic], “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”) to point out things that would be observed and established by those who have turned away. Many people who want to be among the saved at the Judgment are simply not aware of these things.

Let us speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. But do not take my word for it – read the Bible for yourselves.

Currently, I am praying for the intercession of Saint Jerome because all I want to do is lash out with one ad hominem attack after another, which would be most easy and irrefutable. However, knowing that is not that the charitably road to walk, I am also praying for the intercession of Saint Thomas More, that I might respond both intelligently and humorously.

I had hoped to have my response finished before Mass this morning, but it I will not be able to finish it until later this afternoon. My current response is already two pages long and I haven't addressed each of his issues; it needs to be condensed.

Rest assured that I will be speaking with the Editor about this tomorrow and I will demand to speak with the Publishers (who, after two months now, still has not returned a letter I wrote to him or three voice messages I left for him).

Another Letter to the Editor

What follows is the Letter to the Editor I intend to submit tomorrow in response to Associated Press article, "Interfaith leaders say Jewish groups may be overestimating impact of revised Catholic prayer." Your comments are welcome.

Clarification on the Church’s Prayer

On February 5, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI altered a prayer to be used in the celebrations of the Good Friday liturgy of the Missal of Pope John XXIII – the so-called Tridentine Rite - in Catholic Churches.

According to an Associated Press article published in the Effingham Daily News 22 February 2008, the prayer that was altered “had historically been used as an excuse for violence and discrimination against the Jews.” This claim simply is not possible since Pope John XXIII had already revised the same prayer in 1962.

When asked about the 1962 prayer, Cardinal George bluntly asked, “'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?”

The point the Cardinal makes is that people can offend Catholics all they want and nobody cares but when someone happens to be offended by a Catholic people go up in arms. The Anti-Defamation League has gone so far as to put Pope Benedict XVI on the same list as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The basic premise of the article - written two weeks after the prayer - comes down to the fact that some people – the media in particular – do not think the Catholic Church has the right to pray for the conversion of people of other faiths.

Three times each day in synagogues throughout the world the Jewish people pray for the conversion of the Gentiles, a fact not once mentioned in the article. If the Jews can pray for the conversion of Catholics – and others - why can Catholics not pray for the conversion of the Jews?
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Professor of the History and Theology of Judaism at Bard College, does not agree with the AP’s article. He says:

Israel prays for the gentiles, so other monotheists – the Catholic church included - have the right to do the same, and no one should feel offended… I do not see how in spirit or in intent these prayers differ from the one [revised by the Pope] under discussion…. The proselytizing prayers of Judaism and Christianity share an eschatological focus [view to the end of the world] and mean to keep the door to salvation open for all peoples. No more than Christianity and Islam take umbrage at the Israelite prayer should holy Israel object to the Catholic one.

Professor Neusner’s remarks are very true.

The prayer written by the Pope may be translated into English thus:

Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved.

This comes directly out of the writings of Saint Paul.

It is difficult to see how this prayer hinders Jewish-Catholic dialogue since it contains nothing contrary to previous prayers and nothing contrary to Catholic teaching, despite what some have suggested. The remark by Philip Cunningham that the prayer in the Missal of Paul VI contains “no mention of Jews coming to faith in Jesus the Savior” is simply false.

If the Catholic Church cannot be allowed to pray for the conversion of people to the faith of Jesus Christ – whom she professes to be the Messiah – what kind of dialogue can there be? The dialogue that is asked for is not authentic theology but relativism, which says that all religions are equal. Such a position is neither authentically Jewish nor Catholic.

To pray for the conversion of people of other faiths is an act of great love because it is a desire for all people to come to the knowledge of the truth. The Catholic Church recognizes Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation and if she would not pray for the conversion of all peoples she would be denying her very faith. The Catholic Church takes most seriously the words of the Savior that “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Fr. Daren's advice for the day

This morning I sat down and typed a response to an Associated Press article entitled "Catholic leaders tangle with Irish-American groups as St. Patrick's Day, Holy Week overlap," (no doubt one of the longest AP headlines to date) published in Friday's issue of the Effingham Daily News.

Though I didn't explicitly state such in my response, I find it most curious that the fact that Irish-Americans might be tangling with Church leaders apparently never entered the reporter's realm of plausibility.

At any rate, after dropping off my Letter to the Editor, I returned to the parish to celebrate Mass. Turning into my driveway I was quite surprised and almost had an accident, which brings me to Fr. Daren's advice for the day:

When turning into your driveway, do not look across the intersection at the crossing guard shoveling snow because you never know when a very large garbage truck will be leaving your driveway as you enter it.

You can't say you haven't been warned. It's not a pretty picture.

And now, the Letter to the Editor:

Clarifications on St. Patrick’s Day 2008

The recent article by the Associated Press published in the Effingham Daily News on February 22, 2008, “Catholic leaders tangle with Irish-American groups as St. Patrick’s Day, Holy Week overlap,” stated: “liturgical rules dictate that no Mass in honor of the Saint (Patrick) can be celebrated on Monday, March 17,” which falls during Holy Week. The article seems to imply that St. Patrick’s Day is being singled out, which simply is not true and that this holiday is primarily a secular celebration, which is also not true.

The celebrations of Holy Week always take precedence over other liturgical celebrations and for this reason the Memorial of St. Patrick has this year been transferred to March 14, the nearest available date to his usual commemoration.

The new date has led many Bishops to request civic celebrations of St. Patrick be celebrated in unison with the liturgical feast or, at the very least, not during Holy Week to keep the due solemnity of these sacred days. These Bishops are to be commended for requesting the life and mission of the Apostle to Ireland be celebrated properly, without detracting from the celebrations of Holy Week and the central mysteries of the Christian faith.

Civic leaders would do well to remember that the celebration of St. Patrick is not primarily a celebration of Irish heritage; Patrick himself was not an Irishman but a Britain. Bagpipes have their origin in the Middle East of the second century and poor, Irish immigrants picked up corned beef and cabbage in the U.S.A., a food not known in Ireland at the time. St. Patrick’s Day celebrates instead the life of the fifth century Bishop who brought the Gospel to Ireland and converted the people to the faith of Jesus Christ. The parades and other festivities – enjoyable as they are – should always take second place to the actual commemoration of the life of St. Patrick by the Church because his feast is her celebration.