Friday, February 29, 2008

Latest Web Page: Protestant Persecution & Intolerance



The notorious Tyburn tree, London, where many noble Catholic martyrs met their death; the executions usually including incomplete hanging, disembowelling, emasculation, having their heart cut out while alive, beheading and quartering

Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance (Index Page) is modified from the previous "Protestantism" web page (i.e., same URL). General material on Protestantism has now been moved to the previous "Calvin and Calvinism" page (now entitled, Calvin, Calvinism, & General Protestantism). The subcategories give an idea of what is found here:

INTRODUCTORY / OVERVIEW

CATHOLIC MARTYRS OF THE ENGLISH "REFORMATION" (SO-CALLED)

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ON THE CONTINENT) FOR HAVING DIFFERENT BELIEFS

PLUNDERING AND THEFT OF CATHOLIC CHURCH PROPERTIES

OPPOSITION TO CO-EXISTENCE WITH CATHOLICS AND THE MASS ("ANTI-ECUMENISM")

ICONOCLASM (DESTRUCTION OF ART AS "IDOLATRY")

INTER-PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE

GERMAN PEASANTS' REVOLT (1525-1526)


Now, of course, immediately some people will be up in arms, huffing and puffing and questioning why I would do such a "terrible" and "unnecessary" thing. In their eyes I am a rabble-rouser, troublemaker, and divisive figure (what else is new in the ongoing mythology of what I am supposedly about?).

My position on this has been consistent for seventeen years, since I converted to Catholicism, and even before that. I oppose all persecution and religious intolerance and lack of freedom, no matter who is doing it, and wherever and whenever it occurs. Period. End of sentence.The "disclaimer" at the beginning of my 1991 "Protestant Inquisition" paper is as good a brief statement of my motivations in documenting all of this outrageous history, as any:
Unfortunately, the religious "scandal score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff -- and not often very accurately or fairly at that).

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Dialogue on Sheol / Hades (Limbo of the Fathers) and Luke 16 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) With a Baptist (vs. "Grubb")



Adam and Eve being pulled from Sheol by Jesus Christ, in an eastern depiction of His Resurrection


This was from an exchange in one of my comboxes (oddly enough under a post about spanking). Grubb's words will be in blue. The first comment I responded to (in green) was from fellow Catholic Keith Rickert, Jr.

* * * * *
How did God ultimately deal with the rebellion of his children? Did He give us some sort of cosmic spanking? Quite the opposite. He lowered himself. He appealed to our hearts, He tried to win them over through love. He lowered himself to become one of us. Even then he didn't take to the streets telling people how wrong they were. Instead he went about healing people infirmities. He served us. Gave himself to us. Washed our feet. Then He gave up his life for us.

I'm surprised you would make this argument. Surely you know how God dealt with His rebellious children throughout the Old Testament. When Adam and Eve rebelled, they were kicked out of the garden. When the Jews rebelled in the wilderness under Moses, God judged and killed thousands of them on the spot. When the Jews rebelled over and over again with idolatry, they would often lose battles, because God wasn't with them. Saul and his army (including Jonathan) went down this way.

After a number of bad kings, God used Nechuchadnezzar and the Babylonians to defeat Israel, destroy the temple, and lead the Jews away into captivity for over 100 years. When the Jews rejected Jesus, the Romans came in and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple once again, in 70 A.D.

The point is that, in cases of wanton rebellion and "not listening", God would be harsh. In the OT period, this was the equivalent of the Jews being (spiritually) "children." God was trying to get through to them the basic notion of obeying a fundamentally superior Being and Creator. So He was relatively more harsh, because that was all they could relate to at that primitive stage. God loved them the whole time. Even His judgments were an act of love. You see the analogy, I trust, by now . . .

Once Jesus and the New Covenant came, then God could exercise much more outward mercy and love and tenderness than before. But there is still a strong motif of "chastisement" in the NT, as I have shown. Indeed, purgatory itself is another analogy. Because we won't be obedient we have to learn the hard way, and so we will have to suffer again before we can go to heaven.

Of course, if you want to go the Protestant route, where everything is all warm fuzzies and peaches and cream when you die, and you go right to the throne of God the Father, like Jesus did, then that would be the analogy there. No spanking; just pure mercy. But we believe that when we are again "infants" in terms of entering heaven, there will have to be some suffering to be endured first.

I agree with most of your comment Dave. Obviously I disagree with the "Protestant route" portion. Setting aside purgatory, God says in multiple places in the NT that true followers who are disobedient get disciplined. Heb 12:6-7 says, "because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son. Endure hardship as discipline, God is treating you as sons, for what son is not disciplined by his father?" That's not to say every hardship is the result of disobedience, but I bet if each of us was honest about it, we'd agree that we have far less hardships (aka discipline) than we have disobedient actions.

He also says in Rev 3:19, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent." God indicates in multiple places that we'll be rebuked and disciplined by Him while we're on earth.

There are no CLEAR indications in the Bible that we'll be punished after we die.


What do you do with 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, then? For that matter, Luke 16 and the "parable" of the rich man and Lazarus is quite clear. He died (16:22) and then was "in anguish in this flame" (16:24). 1 Corinthians 3:15 also mentions a (non-hell) fire or something akin to it: "he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." So that's two passages I would say are quite clear enough.

[Grubb then provided exegesis for 1 Corinthians 3, but I replied: " I don't have time to get into purgatory and 1 Cor 3, but I'll do Luke 16 with ya" -- he had exegeted that passage too]

The story of Lazarus:
Luke 16:22, "The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried,"
Why wasn't the poor man carried to purgatory first? It appears he went straight to heaven.

Nope; this is Hades, or the Limbo of the Fathers. It clearly says so in 16:23. It's neither heaven nor hell. So it proves that there is such a thing as a third state after death and thus indirectly touches upon purgatory as a possibility of another "third state."
Luke 16:23, "and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side."
Hades = Hell not purgatory.

It's not hell. The word for hell in Greek is Gehenna. This is Sheol / Hades.

Can those in hell really see and speak with those in heaven?

No. That's why this isn't referring to hell and heaven. The rich man may end up in hell. We don't know. But we know he's not in hell here because he still has charity towards his brothers.

This leads us to believe it's a parable rather than a true story.

It's called a parable, but it really isn't. It isn't introduced as such, and reads like true history. But even if it were a parable, Jesus couldn't include false categories in it, because that would mislead His hearers.

Sounds more like the great divide between heaven and hell than a temporary cleansing doesn't it?

It's the divide between the wicked and the righteous in Hades.

Not really sure how this supports purgatory at all. It's certainly not crystal clear in doing so.

I didn't say it directly supported purgatory. You forget what I am responding to. This was in reply to your claim that there is no biblical indication of punishment after death. I showed you this passage which is indeed a clear instance of that. The argument for purgatory is more involved. I give many biblical arguments for that in my first book (recently uploaded as a free paper). I'll send an e-book copy to you for free if you want one.

I can see how I Cor 3 might be interpreted to support the idea of purgatory, but Luke 16 doesn't even come close as near as I can tell. My point wasn't that there's no scripture that can be used to support the idea of purgatory but that it's not clear and irrefutable. I still stand by that.

You wrote:
God indicates in multiple places that we'll be rebuked and disciplined by Him while we're on earth. There are no CLEAR indications in the Bible that we'll be punished after we die.
I have shown that Luke 16 fits this category perfectly. You haven't overcome that. You've only shown that you are confused about the various biblical categories of the afterlife.

I've already sparred with Bishop White on 1 Corinthians 3 and purgatory, which is one reason I don't want to spend more time on that passage.

Thanks for responding. I'll do some checking on your points and hope to respond later today or Monday. I know you've already discussed this at length, and re-discussing something over and over (even with a different person) can get old and monotonous. Maybe I'll post my reply here and in the open forum to see if anyone else wants to discuss it. Actually, you didn't address one of my best points. It says that Lazarus was carried directly to Abraham's side. Why didn't he go to Sheol for a brief cleansing?

Abraham and Lazarus and the rich man were all in Sheol. The Jews believed (and Jesus agrees by virtue of this story) that Sheol / Hades had a divide between the righteous and the wicked. Christians believe that Jesus went and "rescued" these people after His death (see Eph. 4:8-10; 1 Pet 3:19-20). The reprobate in Hades eventually are sentenced to hell (Rev 20:13-15).

Plus Abraham said no one could go from here to there or there to here, but one WOULD go from purgatory to heaven after being purified.

That was the nature of Sheol / Hades, as determined by God. It is analogous to purgatory mainly insofar as it is a third state after death that is neither heaven nor hell, but which has foreshadowings of both, as we see in Luke 16.

If Sheol is a temporary stopping point that leads to heaven, Abraham lied; but we both know Abraham wouldn't lie.

I don't see why you would have to think anyone lied. Again, you need to become more acquainted with the doctrine of Hades in Scripture. It's a fascinating topic, for sure.

Here is a Protestant page that talks about Hades and takes essentially the same position I have; and another, that is virtually identical with what I have argued in this discussion. I was making these arguments 25 years ago in debating Jehovah's Witnesses, as a Protestant, and opposing their doctrines of annihilationism and soul sleep. It's not just an argument used by Catholics. It's an exegetical biblical argument that anyone can make.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages



Illustration for Dante's Purgatorio, by Gustave Doré


[from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, pp. 123-145. The introductory material of the chapter (definitions) is omitted; also a few quotations. Footnoting numbers are from my original manuscript and differ from the present Sophia edition. All Bible passages are from RSV]

Psalm 66:12 Thou didst let men ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; yet thou hast brought us forth to a spacious place.

This verse was considered a proof of purgatory by Origen [4] and St. Ambrose, [5] who posits the water of baptism and the fire of purgatory.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.


Isaiah 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning. (see also Isaiah 1:25-26)

St. Francis de Sales, the great Catholic apologist of the 16th century, commented on this verse as follows:

This purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burning is understood of Purgatory by St. Augustine, in the 20th Book of the City of God, chapter 25. And in fact this interpretation is favoured by the words preceding, in which mention is made of the salvation of men, and also by the end of the chapter, where the repose of the blessed is spoken of; wherefore that which is said -- "the Lord shall wash away the filth" -- is to be understood of the purgation necessary for this salvation. And since it is said that this purgation is to be made in the spirit of heat and of burning, it cannot well be understood save of Purgatory and its fire. [6].


Isaiah 6:5-7 And I said: "Woe is me! for I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven."

This passage is a noteworthy example of what happens when men experience God's presence directly. An immediate recognition of one's own unholiness occurs, along with the corresponding feeling of inadequacy. Like Isaiah, we must all undergo a self-conscious and voluntary purging upon approaching God more closely than in this present life.

Few doctrines are clearer in Scripture than the necessity of absolute holiness in order to enter heaven. On this, Protestants and Catholics are in total agreement. Therefore, the fundamental disagreement on this subject is: how long does this purification upon death take? Certainly, it cannot be logically denied as a possibility that this purging might involve duration.


4 Homily 25 on Numbers.

5 In Ps. 36; Sermon 3 on Ps. 118.

6 St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (CON), tr. Henry B. Mackey, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989 (orig. 1596), 358 (Part 3, Article 2: "Purgatory").


Micah 7:8-9 Rejoice not over me, O mine enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. He will bring me forth to the light; I shall behold his deliverance. (see also Leviticus 26:41,43, Job 40:4-5, Lamentations 3:39)

St. Jerome (d.420) considered this a clear proof of purgatory. [7]

Malachi 3:2-4 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap; he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the Lord. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years.


7 Ibid., 358.

St. Francis de Sales recounts the patristic views on this passage:

This place is expounded of a purifying punishment by Origen (Hom. 6 on Exodus), St. Ambrose (On Ps 36), St. Augustine (City of God, Bk. 20, ch. 25), and St. Jerome (on this place). We are quite aware that they understand it of a purgation which will be at the end of the world by the general fire and conflagration, in which will be purged away the remains of the sins of those who will be found alive; but we still are able to draw from this a good argument for our Purgatory. For if persons at that time have need of purgation before receiving the effects of the benediction of the supreme Judge, why shall not those also have need of it who die before that time, since some of these may be found at death to have remains of their imperfections . . . St. Irenaeus in this connection, in chapter 29 of Book V, says that because the militant Church is then to mount up to the heavenly palace of the Spouse, and will no longer have time for purgation, her faults and stains will there and then be purged away by this fire which will precede the judgment. [9]

2 Maccabees 12:39-42,44-45 . . . Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen . . . Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear . . . So they all . . . turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out . . . For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

The Jews offered atonement and prayer for their deceased brethren, who had clearly violated Mosaic Law. Such a practice presupposes purgatory, since those in heaven wouldn't need any help, and those in hell are beyond it. The Jewish people, therefore, believed in prayer for the dead (whether or not this book is scriptural -- Protestants deny that it is). Jesus Christ did not correct this belief, as He surely would have done if it were erroneous (see Matthew 5:22,25-26, 12:32, Luke 12:58-59, 16:9,19-31 below). When our Lord and Savior talks about the afterlife, He never denies the fact that there is a third state, and the overall evidence of His utterances in this regard strongly indicates that He accepted the existence of purgatory.

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, "You fool!" shall be liable to the hell of fire.

St. Francis de Sales elucidates the implications of this statement of Christ:

It is only the third sort of offence which is punished with hell; therefore in the judgment of God after this life there are other pains which are not eternal or infernal, -- these are the pains of Purgatory. One may say that the pains will be suffered in this world; but St. Augustine and the other Fathers understand them for the other world. And again may it not be that a man should die on the first or second offence which is spoken here? And when will such a one pay the penalty due to his offence? . . . Do then as the ancient Fathers did, and say that there is a place where they will be purified, and then they will go to heaven above. [10]


9 St. Francis de Sales, CON, 359-360.

10 Ibid., 373-374.


Matthew 5:25-26 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. (see also Luke 12:58-59)

St. Francis de Sales:

Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine say that the way which is meant in the whilst thou art in the way [while you are going with him to court] is no other than the passage of the present life: the adversary [accuser] will be our own conscience, . . . as St. Ambrose expounds, and Bede, St. Augustine, St. Gregory [the Great], and St. Bernard. Lastly, the judge is without doubt Our Lord . . . The prison, again, is . . . the place of punishment in the other world, in which, as in a large jail, there are many buildings; one for those who are damned, which is as it were for criminals, the other for those in Purgatory, which is as it were for debt. The farthing, [penny] . . . are little sins and infirmities, as the farthing is the smallest money one can owe.


Now let us consider a little where this repayment . . . is to be made. And we find from most ancient Fathers that it is in Purgatory: Tertullian, [11] Cyprian, [12] Origen, [13] . . . St. Ambrose, [14] St. Jerome [15] . . . Who sees not that in St. Luke the comparison is drawn, not from a murderer or some criminal, who can have no hope of escape, but from a debtor who is thrown into prison till payment, and when this is made is at once let out? This then is the meaning of Our Lord, that whilst we are in this world we should try by penitence and its fruits to pay, according to the power which we have by the blood of the Redeemer, the penalty to which our sins have subjected us; since if we wait till death we shall not have such good terms in Purgatory, when we shall be treated with severity of justice. [16]

Matthew 12:32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

If sins can be pardoned in the "age to come" (the afterlife), again, in the nature of things, this must be in purgatory. We would laugh at a man who said that he would not marry in this world or the next (as if he could in the next -- see Mark 12:25). If this sin cannot be forgiven after death, it follows that there are others which can be. Accordingly, this interpretation was held by St. Augustine, [17] St. Gregory the Great, [18] Bede, [19] and St. Bernard, [20] among others.


11 The Soul, 100,10.

12 Epistle 4,2.

13 Homily 35 on Luke 12.

14 Commentary on Luke 12.

15 Commentary on Matthew 5.

16
St. Francis de Sales,CON, 372-373.

17 City of God, 21:24.

18 Dialogues, 4,39.

19 Commentary on Mark 3.

20 Homily 66 in Cant.

Luke 16:9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations. (read Luke 16:1-13 for the context)

St. Francis de Sales

To fail, -- what is it but to die? -- and the friends, -- who are they but the Saints? The interpreters all understand it so; whence two things follow, -- that the Saints can help men departed, and that the departed can be helped by the Saints . . . Thus is this passage expounded by St. Ambrose, and by St. Augustine. [21] But the parable Our Lord is using is too clear to allow us any doubt of this interpretation; for the similitude is taken from a steward who, being dismissed from his office and reduced to poverty [16:2], begged help from his friends, and Our Lord likens the dismissal unto death, and the help begged from friends unto the help one receives after death from those to whom one has given alms. This help cannot be received by those who are in Paradise or in hell; it is then by those who are in Purgatory. [22]

Luke 16:19-31 There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; . . . the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame." But Abraham said, "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us." And he said, "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment." But Abraham said, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." And he said, "No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent." He said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead."

Zechariah 9:11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit.


Ephesians 4:8-10 . . . "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." (In saying, "he ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)



1 Peter 3:19-20 . . . he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. (see also 4:6)


21 City of God, 12:27.

22 St. Francis de Sales, CON, 374-375.

Catholic commentator George Leo Haydock states:

Abraham's bosom -- The place of rest, where the souls of the saints resided, till Christ had opened heaven by his death . . . The bosom of Abraham (the common Father of all the faithful) was the place where the souls of the saints, and departed patriarchs, waited the arrival of their Deliverer. It was thither that Jesus went after his death; as it is said in the Creed, he descended into hell, to deliver those who were detained there, and who might at Christ's ascension enter into heaven (see 1 Peter 3:19, Matthew 8:11) . . .


[on 1 Peter 3:19-20]: These spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach after his death, were not in heaven, nor yet in the hell of the damned; because heaven is no prison, and Christ did not go to preach to the damned . . . In this prison souls would not be detained unless they were indebted to divine justice, nor would salvation be preached to them unless they were in a state that was capable of receiving salvation. [23]

At the very least, these passages prove that there can and does exist a third (and intermediate) state after death besides heaven and hell. Thus, purgatory is not a priori unthinkable from a biblical perspective (as many Protestants casually assume). True, the Hebrew Sheol (Greek Hades -- netherworld) is not absolutely identical to purgatory (both righteous and unrighteous go there), but it is nevertheless strikingly similar. Sheol is referred to frequently throughout the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:22, 2 Samuel 22:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 55:15, 86:13, 116:3, 139:8, Proverbs 9:18, 23:14, Isaiah 5:14, 14:9,15, Ezekiel 31:16-17, 32:21,27). In Jewish apocalyptic literature (in the few hundred years before Christ), the notion of divisions in Sheol is found (for instance, in Enoch 22:1-14).

The Christian hell is equivalent to the New Testament Gehenna or "Lake of Fire". Gehenna was literally the burning ash-heap outside Jerusalem, and was used as the name for hell by Christ (Matthew 5:22,29-30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15,33, Mark 9:43,45,47, Luke 12:5 -- cf. James 3:6). "Lake of fire" occurs only in Revelation as a chilling description of the horrors of hell into which the damned would be thrown (Revelation 19:20, 20:10,14-15, 21:8).

We know from Scripture that a few Old Testament saints went to heaven before Christ went to Sheol and led (presumably) the majority of the pre-Christian righteous there (Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:19-20). Elijah went straight to heaven by a whirlwind, as we are informed in 2 Kings 2:11. It is also generally thought by all sides that Enoch went directly to heaven as well (Genesis 5:24). Moses came with Elijah to the Mount of Transfiguration to talk with Jesus (Matthew 17:1-3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30-31). By implication, then, it could be held that he, too, had been in heaven, and by further logical inference, other Old Testament saintly figures.

It follows that, even before Christ, there was a "two-tiered" afterlife for the righteous: some, such as Elijah, Enoch and likely Moses and others, went to heaven, whereas a second, larger group went temporarily to Sheol. Likewise, now the elect of God can go straight to heaven if sufficiently holy, or to purgatory as a necessary stopping-point in order to attain to the proper sanctity becoming of inhabitants of heavenly glory. Therefore, it is neither true that all righteous dead before Christ went solely to Sheol, nor that all after His Resurrection went, and go, to heaven. On the other hand, the reprobate dead in Sheol (or Hades) eventually are sentenced to hell (Revelation 20:13-15).

John Henry Cardinal Newman comments:

Our Saviour, as we suppose, did not go to the abyss assigned to the fallen Angels, but to those mysterious mansions where the souls of all men await the judgment. That He went to the abode of blessed spirits is evident, from His words addressed to the robber on the cross, when He also called it Paradise; that He went to some other place besides Paradise may be conjectured from St. Peter's saying, He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient (1 Peter 3:19-20). The circumstances then that these two abodes of disembodied good and bad, are called by one name, Hades, . . . seems clearly to show that Paradise is not the same as Heaven, but a resting-place at the foot of it. Let it be further remarked, that Samuel, when brought from the dead, in the witch's cavern, said Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? (1 Samuel 28:15), words which would seem quite inconsistent with his being then already in Heaven. [24]


1 Corinthians 3:11-15 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble - each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

This is a clear and obvious allusion to purgatory, or at least, even for the most skeptical person, something exceedingly similar to it. Thus thought the Fathers, such as St. Cyprian, [25] St. Ambrose, [26] St. Jerome, [27] St. Gregory the Great, [28] Origen, [29] and St. Augustine:

Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger [Psalm 38:1]. . . . In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of the corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire . . . For it is said: He shall be saved, but as if by fire [1 Corinthians 3:15]. And because it is said that he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly, though we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life. [30]

St. Francis de Sales observes:

The Apostle uses two similitudes. The first is of an architect who with solid materials builds a valuable house on a rock: the second is of one who on the same foundation erects a house of boards, reeds, straw. Let us now imagine that a fire breaks out in both the houses. That which is of solid material will be out of danger, and the other will be burnt to ashes. And if the architect be in the first he will be whole and safe; if he be in the second, he must, if he would escape, rush through fire and flame, and shall be saved yet so that he will bear the marks of having been in fire . . . The fire by which the architect is saved can only be understood of the fire of Purgatory . . . . . .


When he . . . speaks of him who has built on the foundation, wood, straw, stubble, he shows that he is not speaking of the fire which will precede the day of judgment, since by this will pass not only those who have built with these light materials, but also those who shall have built in gold, silver, etc. All this interpretation, besides that it agrees very well with the text, is also most authentic, as having been followed with common consent by the ancient Fathers. [31]


1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

St. Francis de Sales:

This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in Luke 12:50 . . . and in St. Mark 10:38-9 . . . -- in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism [cf. Matthew 3:11, 20:22-3, Luke 3:16].


This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44 [cited above]: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . . Now it was not for those in Paradise [heaven], who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did St. Ephraim [d.373] expound it. [32]

The "penance" interpretation is supported contextually by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, and dying every day. St. Paul certainly doesn't condemn the practice, whatever it is (his question being merely rhetorical). Given these facts, and the striking resemblance to 2 Maccabees 12:44, the traditional Catholic interpretation seems the most plausible.

In any event, Protestants are at almost a complete loss in coherently explaining this verse -- one of the most difficult in the New Testament for them to interpret. It simply does not comport with their theology, which utterly disallows any penitential or prayerful efforts on behalf of the deceased.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Our sins are judged here rather than forgiven, and this takes place in the next life. The standard Protestant theology of the judgment seat of Christ is not dissimilar to the notion of the chastising purifications of purgatory. There is a direct relation between judgment and the purging of sin. We are punished, in some fashion -- or so St. Paul tells us in this verse -- for evil deeds done. The pains of purgatory are roughly identical, or else highly akin, to this punishment, since they are the taking away of those sinful habits, tendencies, and affinities to which we have become attached. Conversely, we are rewarded for good deeds. As there are differential rewards for righteousness, so there are differential sufferings in purgatory for unrighteousness, so that a certain parallelism exists between the two concepts.

This passage is a sort of liaison between the theological categories justification and purgatory (and penance) -- the former being the "positive" establishment of sanctity, and the latter being the "negative" removal of unholiness. This congruity between reward and punishment is even more clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 above, where St. Paul freely intermingles rewards and punishments, in the context of purgatorial fire. Given the obvious affinity of that passage with this one, each can be legitimately interpreted in light of the other. In doing so, the Catholic interpretation, with its distinctive understanding of faith and works, penance and purgatory, is more satisfactory exegetically than the usual Protestant interpretations, which are uncomfortable, by and large, with differential rewards and punishments (seeing these as somewhat incompatible with faith alone).

2 Corinthians 7:1 . . . let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God. (see also 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 4:7)

Here is a description of that analogous process of sanctification in this life which will be greatly intensified and made completely efficacious in the next, in purgatory.

Philippians 2:10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Revelation 5:3,13 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it. . . . And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, "To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honour and glory and might for ever and ever!"

If God refuses to receive prayer, praise and worship from the unrepentant sinner (Psalm 66:18, Proverbs 1:28-30, Isaiah 1:15, 59:2, Jeremiah 6:20, Amos 5:21-24, Micah 3:4, Malachi 1:10, John 9:31, Hebrews 10:38), why would He permit the damned to undertake this practice?

Furthermore, if God does not compel human beings to follow Him and to enjoy His presence for eternity contrary to their free will, then it seems that He would not -- as far as we can tell from Scripture -- compel them to praise Him, as this would be meaningless, if not repulsive.

Therefore, "under the earth" must refer to purgatory. Revelation 5:13 especially makes sense under this interpretation, as the praise spoken there does not in any way appear forced, but rather, heartfelt and seemingly spontaneous (which would not be at all expected of persons eternally consigned to hell -- see Matthew 8:29, Luke 4:34, 8:28, James 2:19).

Some Protestant commentators readily admit that "under the earth" is a reference to those in Sheol or Hades. Granting this interpretation for the sake of argument, most Protestants would presumably regard Hades in this instance (after Christ's death -- see Revelation 5:12) as simply the "holding tank" for those ultimately destined for hell (the elect having been taken to heaven by Christ). But this leads straight back to the exegetical problem of God neither desiring nor accepting such praise from even the obstinate sinner, let alone the damned.

The acceptance of a third, intermediate state in the afterlife for the righteous as well as the reprobate, even after Christ's Resurrection, is a seriously troublesome position if one holds to the tenets of mainstream Reformational eschatological theology. For -- given the Protestant view on justification -- why would (or should) there be any second state for the "saved" once the road to heaven was paved by Christ? This state of affairs leads inexorably to considerations of differential merit and reward, such that a whole class is relegated to continued separation from Christ in some partial sense, and by implication, punishment, since these children of God have not yet attained to full union with God in eternal happiness and bliss.

Once it is conceded that (dead) righteous men praise God from "under the earth," the standard Protestant position of all the saved "going straight to heaven at death" crumbles, for the simple reason that this group is contrasted with those in heaven. Furthermore, a position that "under the earth" refers metaphorically to merely all dead righteous (who, according to Protestantism are in heaven), makes the phraseology of Philippians 2:10 and Revelation 5:3,13 absurdly redundant, since St. Paul and St. John would be saying, "Those in heaven, and on earth, and in heaven . . . ."

Again, the only reasonable alternate interpretation, given all the above data, is to posit the existence of purgatory, from which praise to God emanates -- it being that portion of the Church stationed for a time in the portico of heaven, so to speak.

2 Timothy 1:16-18 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me -- may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day -- and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Onesiphorus appears to be dead at the time St. Paul writes this letter to Timothy. If that is true, then Paul is praying for the dead. One well-known Protestant commentary [33] admits that Onesiphorus is likely dead, citing the cross-reference of 2 Timothy 4:19, yet takes the remarkably incoherent position that St. Paul is praying for his conduct in life and reward at the Judgment. Thus, the admitted prayer (1:18), since it supposedly refers to the earthly life of the intended recipient, somehow thereby ceases to be a prayer for the dead even though it is pleading for mercy on the Day of Judgment for one who has indeed departed!

Now, of course, St. Paul could also pray for a living person to be recompensed justly by God, but this is missing the point, and is an example of the classic logical fallacy of proposing a "distinction without a difference." For what distinguishes prayers for a living or a dead man, where the final Judgment is concerned?

Protestants say that it is impermissible to pray for the dead on this score since their fate is already sealed and it will be to no avail. The error here lies in the fact that the person's fate had always been known (God being omniscient and out of time, foreordaining in a mysterious way the beginning and end of all things). In both cases our knowledge is paltry and altogether insufficient as to the person's destiny. We pray out of charity (or, "desire," as it were), and because we are commanded to, having been assured by the inspired biblical revelation that it has an effect.

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, another respected evangelical reference, takes a different position: "His household would hardly retain his name after the master was dead . . . Nowhere has Paul prayers for the dead, which is fatal to the theory . . . that he was dead." [34]

But Word Pictures in the New Testament, a six-volume linguistic commentary by the great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, states: "Apparently Onesiphorus is now dead as is implied by the wish in 1:18." [35]

On the face of it, why couldn't St. Paul be referring to the house of Onesiphorus in the same sense in which we speak of a deceased person's "surviving wife and children?" His statement in 1:18 is similar to our spontaneous utterances at funerals, such as "May God rest his soul," etc. (sometimes spoken or thought despite theologies to the contrary). And if Paul is "wishing" for benefits for the soul of a dead man, as Robertson holds, how is this essentially any different from praying for the dead?

To conclude, of the three prominent evangelical Protestant commentaries surveyed, two hold that St. Paul is "praying," and one that he is "wishing." Two conclude that Onesiphorus is probably dead, with a third denying this. It might be supposed with good reason that if reputable, scholarly Protestant commentators are more or less forced into (for them) uncomfortable positions due to the inescapable clarity of a text, perhaps the Catholic interpretation is the best one, as it requires no unnatural straining. All that is necessary is the willingness to accept the practice of prayers for the dead, for which there is ample scriptural warrant, Jewish precedent, and abundant support in the early Christian Church, as will be demonstrated subsequently.

Hebrews 12:14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (see also 12:1,5-11,15,23, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:3 1 John 3:2-3)

John Henry Cardinal Newman writes:

The truth itself is declared in one form or another in every part of Scripture. It is told us again and again, that to make sinful creatures holy was the great end which our Lord had in view in taking upon Him our nature, and thus none but the holy will be accepted for His sake at the last day. The whole history of redemption, the covenant of mercy in all its parts and provisions, attests the necessity of holiness in order to salvation; as indeed even our natural conscience bears witness also . . .


Even supposing a man of unholy life were suffered to enter heaven, he would not be happy there; so that it would be no mercy to permit him to enter . . . We conclude that any man, whatever his habits, tastes, or manner of life, if once admitted into heaven, would be happy there . . . [But] here every man can do his own pleasure, but there he must do God's pleasure . . . . . Let us alone! What have we to do with thee? is the sole thought and desire of unclean souls, even while they acknowledge His majesty. None but the holy can look upon the Holy One; without holiness no man can endure to see the Lord . . .


Heaven is not heaven, is not a place of happiness except to the holy . . . There is a moral malady which disorders the inward sight and taste; and no man labouring under it is in a condition to enjoy what Scripture calls the fulness of joy in God's presence, and pleasures at His right hand forevermore. [36]

Newman explains (in effect) why purgatory (which he accepts elsewhere, even before his conversion to Catholicism in 1845) is a necessary and indeed, ultimately desirable process for all of us imperfect sinners to undergo, in order to properly approach God in His unfathomable majesty and holiness.

Hebrews 12:29 . . . our God is a consuming fire.


(see also Exodus 3:2-6, 19:18, 24:17, Numbers 31:23, Deuteronomy 4:24, 9:3, Psalm 66:10-12, Malachi 3:2, 4:1, Hebrews 10:27,31)

Revelation 21:27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practises abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

The relevance of this biblical data in terms of its analogy to the idea of purgatory is clear. The abundance of such scriptural evidence for purgatory led to a consensus among the Church Fathers as well. Protestant church historian Philip Schaff, who can definitely be considered a "hostile witness" as pertains this topic, summarized the belief of the early Christian Church:

These views of the middle state in connection with prayers for the dead show a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory . . . there are traces of the purgatorial idea of suffering the temporal consequences of sin, and a painful struggle after holiness . . . The common people and most of the fathers understood it of a material fire; but this is not a matter of faith . . . A material fire would be very harmless without a material body. [37]

Despite all this, Protestantism rejected the beliefs in purgatory and prayers for the dead, with the exception of Anglicans, many of whom have retained some form of these. Popular Christian apologist C. S. Lewis was one of these traditional Anglicans. In one of his last books, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, [38] he stated that he prayed for the dead, among whom were many of his loved ones, and that he believed in purgatory, comparing it to an intense rinsing of the mouth at the dentist's office. He thought no one would want to enter heaven unclean, as this would be downright embarrassing.


23 Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, New York: 1859; rep. Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991, 1376-1377, 1611.

24 Sermon: "The Intermediate State," 1836.

25 Book 4, epistle 2.

26 Commentary on 1 Cor 3; Sermon 20; Commentary on Ps 116.

27 Commentary on Amos 4.

28 Dialogues 4,39.

29 6th Homily on Exodus.

30 Explanations of the Psalms, 37, 3. From Jurgens, William A., ed. and tr., The Faith of the Early Fathers (FEF), 3 volumes, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, vol. 3, 17.

31 St. Francis de Sales, CON, 360-362.

32 Ibid., 368-369.

33 Guthrie, D. and J.A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970, 1178. The Lutheran Johannes Bengel (1687-1752), and the Anglican Henry Alford (1810-71), both highly-respected expositors, also held that Onesiphorus was dead.

34 Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 (orig. 1864), 1376.

35 Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes., vol. 4, 615.

36 Sermon: "Holiness Necessary for Future Blessedness," 1834 (On Hebrews 12:14).

37 Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, "Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325," 5th ed., New York: 1889; rep. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,ch. 12, sec. 156, 604-606.

38 New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109.

Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible (Steve Ray, Pat Madrid & Others)



I was asked on the CHNI board about patristic support for this analogical notion, and ran across a great and helpful compilation of quotes from the Church fathers, from my friend Steve Ray. Follow the link in the article to a Microsoft Word document. See also related materials:

Ark of the New Covenant (Patrick Madrid: This Rock, Dec. 1991)

The Blessed Virgin Mary (Scripture Catholic: see Section II)

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant (Steve Ray: This Rock, October 2005)

Origen (c. 185-c. 254 ) on Faith, Works, and Judgment

I was just made aware of this insightful patristic citation today, which is highly relevant to my recent paper: Final Judgment in Scripture is Always Associated With Works and Never With Faith Alone (50 Passages). This is the Catholic "both/and" outlook. It sure ain't the Protestant tendency to "either/or" false dichotomies:
It is good to know that we will be judged at the divine judgment seat not on our faith alone, as if we had not to answer for our conduct; nor on our conduct alone, as if our faith were not to be scrutinized. What justifies is our uprightness on both scores, and if we are short on either we shall deserve punishment.

(Dialogue with Heraclides, 8; from Navarre Bible Commentary; comment on Acts 20:21)

444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713



Related papers:


161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs]

312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth ("Bloody Good Queen Bess"): 1558-1603

123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources)

[names not linked are found on the Irish Confessors and Martyrs page, from The Catholic Encyclopedia]

[ adding the 269 Irish martyrs during the reign of Butcher Henry VIII, we arrive at a grand total of 713 documented Irish martyrs and confessors ]

Total of all documented martyrs and heroic confessors for the Catholic faith, persecuted by English "head of the Church" royalty and its minions, in these four papers:

1375


Conacius Macuarta (Conn McCourt)

Franciscan. Flogged to death in Armagh, 16 December 1565, for refusing to acknowledge the queen's supremacy.

Roger MacCongaill (McConnell)

Franciscan. Flogged to death in Armagh, 16 December, 1565, for refusing to acknowledge the queen's supremacy.

Edmund Fitzsimon

Franciscan. Hanged on 21 January, 1575 in Downpatrick.

John Lochran

Franciscan. Hanged on 21 January, 1575 in Downpatrick.

Donagh O'Rorke

Franciscan. Hanged on 21 January, 1575 in Downpatrick.

Edmund MacDonnell (or, O'Donnell)

Jesuit priest. Died on 16 March 1575 in Cork.

Fergall Ward

Franciscan guardian, Armagh -- hanged, 28 April 1575, with his own girdle.

William Walsh

Born c. 1512. Bishop of Meath (Cistercian). When Queen Elizabeth introduced a Protestant liturgy into Ireland, Walsh resisted strenuously in Convocatio, and preached at Trim against the Book of Common Prayer. On 4 Feb., 1560, he refused the oath of supremacy, was deprived of his temporalities, and by the Queen's order committed to custody and was later committed to Dublin Castle in July 1565, in a dark and filthy cell. At Christmas, 1572, his friends contrived his escape to Nantes in Brittany. After six months of destitution he was aided by the nuncio in France to proceed to Spain. He reached Alcalá almost moribund through privations, fatigues. Afterwards he removed to the Cistercian convent and died on 4 January 1577, among his former brethren, esteemed a martyr to the Faith.

Thomas Courcy

Vicar-general at Kinsale. Hanged on 30 March 1577.

David Hurley


Dean of Emly -- died in prison in 1578.

Thomas Moeran

Dean of Cork -- taken in the exercise of his functions and executed in 1578.

John O'Dowd

Franciscan priest. Refused to reveal a confession, put to death at Elphin by having his skull compressed with a twisted cord, in 1579.

Thomas O'Herlahy

Bishop of Ross. Consecrated about 1560, he was one of three Irish bishops attending the Council of Trent. He incurred such persecution through enforcing its decrees that he fled with his chaplain to a little island, but was betrayed to Perrot, President of Munster, who sent him in chains to the Tower of London. Simultaneously with Primate Creagh, he was confined until released after about three years and seven months on the security of Cormac MacCarthy, Lord of Muskery. Intending to retire to Belgium, ill health contracted in prison induced him to return to Ireland. He was apprehended at Dublin, but released on exhibiting his discharge, and proceeded to Muskery under MacCarthy's protection. Disliking the lavishness of that nobleman's house, he withdrew to a small farm and lived in great austerity. Relieving distress to the utmost of his power he made a visitation of his diocese yearly, and on great festivals officiated and preached in a neighbouring church. Thus, though afflicted with dropsy, he lived until his sixtieth (or seventieth) year, dying exhausted by labours and sufferings, in 1579.

Thaddæus Daly and Companion

Franciscans. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Limerick, 1 January 1579. The bystanders reported that his head when cut off distinctly uttered the words: "Lord, show me Thy ways."

Edmund Tanner

Born c. 1526. Bishop of Cork and Cloyne, Ireland, 1574-1579. In May, 1575, he set out for Ireland with exceptional faculties for his own diocese and for those of Cashel, Dublin, and its suffragan sees in the absence of their respective prelates. Not long after his reaching Ireland he was captured while exercising his functions at Clonmel, and was thrown into prison; here, as Holing tells, he was visited by a schismatical bishop whom he reconciled to the Church. A few days later he was himself released through the influence of a noble earl. Thereafter he did not venture into his own diocese but as commissary-Apostolic he traversed the other districts assigned him, administering the sacraments and discharging in secret the other duties of his office. Four years he laboured thus in continual peril and distress, and at length succumbed to his privations and fatigues in the Diocese of Ossory, 4 June, 1579. Bruodin states that he died in Dublin Castle after eighteen months of imprisonment and cruel torture.

Blessed Patrick O'Healey (or, O'Healy, or Pádraig Ó Héilí)

Born c. 1545. Bishop of Mayo (Franciscan). Denied the royal supremacy, replying that he could not barter his faith for life or honours; his business was to do a bishop's part in advancing religion and saving souls. To questions about the plans of the pope and the King of Spain for invading Ireland he made no answer, and thereupon was delivered to torture. As he still remained silent, he was sent to instant execution by martial law. The execution by hanging took place outside one of the gates of Kilmallock, on 22 August 1579.

Blessed Cornelius (Or, Conn) O'Rourke

Franciscan priest. Tortured and hanged in Kilmallock, on 22 August 1579.

Prior at the Cistercian monastery of Graeg

Killed in 1580.

Daniel O'Neilan (or, O'Duillian)

Franciscan priest. Fastened round the waist with a rope and thrown with weights tied to his feet from one of town-gates at Youghal, finally fastened to a mill-wheel and torn to pieces, 28 March 1580.

Daniel Hanrichan
Maurice O'Scanlan
Philip O'Shee (O'Lee)


Franciscan priests. Beaten with sticks and slain, 6 April 1580, before the altar of Lislachtin monastery, Co. Kerry.

Laurence O'Moore

Priest. Tortured and hanged, 11 November 1580, after the surrender of Dun-an-oir in Kerry.

Oliver Plunkett

Gentleman. Tortured and hanged, 11 November 1580, after the surrender of Dun-an-oir in Kerry.

William Walsh (or Willick)

Englishman. Tortured and hanged, 11 November 1580, after the surrender of Dun-an-oir in Kerry.

John Clinch
John Eustace
Thomas Eustace
Robert Fitzgerald
Walter Lakin (or, Layrmus)

Matthew Lamport
Thomas Netherfield (or, Netterville)
Nicholas Nugent (Chief Justice)
David Sutton
Robert Sherlock
John Sutton
William Wogan


Executed on a charge of complicity in rebellion with Lord Baltinglass, in 1581.

Richard French

Priest, Ferns Diocese. Died in prison in 1581.

Blessed Patrick Cavanaugh (or, Cavanagh, or, Pádraigh Caomhánach)
Blessed Edward Cheevers
Blessed Robert Meyler (or, Tyler)
Blessed Matthew Lambert
John O'Lahy
Anonymous Sailor

Matthew Lambert was a Wexford baker who had arranged with five sailor acquaintances to provide safe passage by ship out of Wexford for Viscount Baltinglass and his Jesuit chaplain Robert Rochford when English troops were pursuing them after the fall of the Second Desmond Rebellion (1579-83). The authorities heard of the plan beforehand and Matthew was arrested together with his five sailor friends. Thrown into prison, they were questioned about politics and religion. Lambert’s reply was: “I am not a learned man. I am unable to debate with you, but I can tell you this, ‘I am a Catholic and I believe whatever our Holy Mother the Catholic Church believes.’” They were found guilty of treason and hanged, drawn, and quartered in Wexford on 5 July 1581.

Nicholas Fitzgerald

Cistercian. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, September 1581 at Dublin.

Maurice Eustace

He secretly took Holy Orders. His servant, who was aware of the fact, told his father, who had his son immediately arrested and imprisoned in Dublin and put on trial for high treason. During his imprisonment Adam Loftus, Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, offered him his daughter in marriage, and a large dowry if he would accept the reformed religion. Yielding neither to the bribery nor persecution, Eustace was sentenced to public execution, and hanged, in November 1581.

Henry O'Fremlamhaidh (anglicized Frawley)

Died in 1582.

Thaddæus O'Meran (or O'Morachue)

Franciscan. Guardian of Enniscorthy. Died in 1582.

John Wallis

Priest. Died, 20 January 1582, in prison at Worcester.

Cahill McGoran
Peter McQuillan
Roger O'Donnellan
Patrick O'Kenna
James Pillan


Franciscan priests. Died on or near 13 February 1582, Dublin Castle.

Roger McHenlea (or, O'Hanlon)

Franciscan lay brother. Died on or near 13 February 1582, Dublin Castle.

Henry Delahoyde
Phelim O'Hara (or, O'Corra)


Franciscans of Moyne, Co. Mayo. Hanged and quartered, 1 May 1582.

Æneas Penny

Parish priest of Killatra (Killasser, Co. Mayo). Slain by soldiers while saying Mass, 4 May 1582.

Donagh O'Reddy

Parish priest of Coleraine. Hanged and transfixed with swords, 12 June 1582, at the altar of his church.

Blessed Margaret Birmingham Ball

Born in 1515. When she was fifteen years old Margaret married Alderman Bartholomew Ball of Ballrothery. Margaret had ten children. Her husband was elected Mayor of Dublin in 1553, making Margaret the Mayoress. She had a comfortable life with a large household and many servants, and she was recognised for organising classes for the children of local Irish families in her own home.

Margaret's eldest son, Walter Ball, embraced the "new religion" and was appointed Commissioner for Ecclesiastical Causes in 1577. Margaret was disappointed with her son's change of faith and tried to change his mind. On one occasion, she told him that she had a "special friend" for him to meet. Walter arrived early with a company of soldiers, and found that the "special friend" was Dermot O'Hurley, Archbishop of Cashel. He was celebrating Mass with the family. Walter had his mother arrested and locked in the dungeons of Dublin Castle.

When the family protested, Walter declared that his mother should have been executed, but he had spared her. She would be allowed to go free if she "Took the Oath", which probably referred to the Oath of Supremacy. Her second son, Nicholas, who supported her, was elected Mayor of Dublin in 1582. However, Walter was still Commissioner for Ecclesiastical Causes, which was a crown appointment. He outranked Nicholas and kept him from securing the release of their mother. Nicholas visited her daily, bringing her food, clothing, and candles.

Margaret died in 1584 at the age of sixty-nine, which was an advanced age at the time. She was crippled with arthritis and had lived for three years in the cold, wet dungeon of Dublin Castle with no natural light. Margaret had lived in the dungeon when she could have returned to a life of comfort at any time by simply "taking the oath." Although she could have altered her will, she still bequeathed her property to Walter upon her death.

John O'Daly

Franciscan priest. Trampled to death by cavalry in 1584.

Blessed Dermond (or, Dermot) O'Hurley

Born c. 1530. Archbishop of Cashel. He was committed to Dublin Castle in October, 1583 and tortured. Early in March, 1584, the archbishop's legs were thrust into boots filled with oil and salt, beneath which a fire was kindled. Some groans of agony were wrung from the victim, and he cried aloud, "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!," but rejected every proposal to abandon his religion. Ultimately he swooned away, and fearing his death, the torturers removed him; as the boots were pulled off, the flesh was stripped from his bones. In this condition he was returned to prison. Queen Elizabeth approved of the torture, and execution by martial law. He was secretly taken out at dawn, and hanged with a withe on the gibbet near St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, on 20 June, 1584. He spoke to the crowds before he was killed:
Be it therefore known unto you . . . that I am a priest anointed and also a Bishop, although unworthy of so sacred dignities, and no cause could they find against me that might in the least deserve the pains of death, but merely for my function of priesthood wherein they have proceeded against me in all points cruelly contrary to their own laws . . . and I do enjoin you (dear Christian brethren) to manifest the same to the world and also to bear witness on the Day of Judgment of my Innocent death, which I endure for my function and profession of the most holy Catholic Faith.
Thaddæus Clancy

Died on 15 September 1584, near Listowel.

Gelasius (or, Glaisne) O'Cullenan

Cistercian Abbot of Boyle. Tortured and hanged on 21 November 1584 at Dublin.

Eugene Cronius (or Hugh or John Mulcheran, or Eoghan O'Maoilchiarain)

Either Abbot of Trinity Island, Co. Roscommon, or a secular priest. Tortured and hanged on, 21 November 1584, at Dublin.

Blessed Maurice Kenraghty (or, McKenraghty)

Priest. In September, 1583, he was handed over to the Earl of Ormond. By Ormond's command he was chained to one Patrick Grant, and sent to prison at Clonmel. Here he lay in irons, exhorting, instructing, and hearing confessions at his prison grate until April, 1585. His jailer was then bribed by Victor White, a leading townsman, to release the priest for one night to say Mass and administer the Paschal Communion in White's house. The jailer secretly warned the President of Munster to take this opportunity to capture most of the neighbouring recusants (those refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy) at Mass. In the morning an armed force surrounded the house, arrested White and others, seized the sacred vessels, and looked for the priest everywhere. He had hidden under straw at the first alarm, and, though wounded when the heap was probed, ultimately escaped to the woods. Learning, however, that White's life could only be saved by his (Kenraghty's) surrender, he gave himself up, and was at once tried by martial law. Pardon and preferment were offered him if he agreed to conform, but he resolutely maintained the Catholic faith and the pope's authority, and was hanged as a traitor at Clonmel on 20 April 1585. His head was set up in the market-place.

Patrick O'Connor, Cistercian
Malachy O'Kelly
, Cistercian

Hanged and quartered, 19 May 1585, at Boyle.

Maurice (or Murtagh) O'Brien

Bishop of Emly. Died in prison at Dublin in 1586.

Donagh O'Murheely (or, O'Murthuile, wrongly identified with O'Hurley) and Companion

Franciscans. Stoned and tortured to death at Muckross, Killarney in 1586.

John Cornelius

Franciscan of Askeaton. Died in 1587.

Walter Farrell

Franciscan of Askeaton. Hanged with his own girdle in 1587.

Peter (or Patrick) Meyler

Native of Wexford, executed at Galway in 1588.

Patrick O'Brady, Franciscan Prior at Monaghan, and Six Friars

Killed in 1588 by soldiers.

Dermot O'Mulrony (Franciscan priest)
Brother Thomas (Franciscan)
Franciscan of Galbally, Co. Limerick


Put to death in Limerick on 21 March 1588.

Thaddæus O'Boyle

Guardian of Donegal, slain there, 13 April 1588, by soldiers.

Patrick Plunkett

Knight. Hanged and quartered, 6 May 1588, Dublin.

Peter Miller

Diocese of Ferns. Tortured, hanged, and quartered, 4 October, 1588.

Geoffrey Farrell
John O'Molloy
Cornelius O'Dogherty


Franciscan priests. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, 15 December 1588, at Abbeyleix.

Christopher Roche

Layman. ied on 13 December 1590, under torture, Newgate, London.

Matthew O'Leyn

Franciscan priest. Died on 6 March 1590, at Kilcrea.

Terence Magennis
Magnus O'Fredliney (or O'Todhry)
Loughlin og Mac O'Cadha (or, Mac Eochadha, Keogh)


Franciscans of Multifarnham. Died in prison in 1591.

Andrew Strich

Priest, Limerick. Died in Dublin Castle in 1594.

John Stephens

Priest, Dublin province. Hanged and quartered, 4 September 1597, for saying Mass.

George Power

Vicar-General of Ossory. Died in prison in 1599.

John Walsh

Vicar-General of Dublin. Died in prison at Chester in 1600.

Nicholas Young

Priest, died in Dublin Castle in 1600.

James Dudall (or, Dowdall)

He was a merchant of Drogheda, Ireland. In the summer of 1598, when returning from France, his ship was driven by stress of weather onto the coast of Devonshire, and he was arrested by William Bourchier, Earl of Bath, who had him under examination. Dowdall publicly avowed that he rejected the queen's supremacy, and only recognized that of the Roman pontiff. The earl forwarded the examination to Sir Robert Cecil, and had Dowdall committed to Exeter jail. Whilst in prison he was tortured and put to the rack, but continued unchanged in his fidelity to the ancient faith. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Exeter, England, 20 September, 1600.

Patrick Hayes (or, O'Hea)

Shipowner of Wexford and layman, charged with aiding bishops, priests, and others. Died in prison on 4 December 1600 (possibly after at least twenty years of incarceration).

Donagh O'Cronin

Clerk. Hanged and disembowelled in Cork, in 1601.

Bernard Moriarty

Dean of Ardagh and Vicar-General of Dublin. Having his thighs broken by soldiers, died in prison, Dublin, in 1601.

Redmond O'Gallagher

Bishop of Derry. Slain by soldiers, 15 March 1601, near Dungiven.

Daniel (or, Donagh) O'Mollony

Vicar-General of Killaloe. Died of torture, 24 April 1601, Dublin Castle.

John O'Kelly

Priest. Died on 15 May 1601, in prison.

Two priests and seven novices of Limerick and Kilmallock, assembled in 1602 with forty Benedictine, Cistercian, and other monks, at Scattery Island in the Shannon to be deported under safe conduct in a man-of-war, were cast overboard at sea.

Blessed Dominic Collins

Born in 1566. Ordained as a Jesuit in 1589. After the Battle of Kinsale he retreated with O'Sullivan Beare to Dunboy Castle in west Cork, where after a siege he was captured, bribed to change his religion and tortured. No effort was spared in the attempt to break Dominic's resolution. We are told that he was savagely tortured, though the form of torture is not mentioned. He was promised rich rewards and high ecclesiastical office if he would accept the doctrines of Anglicanism. Ministers of religion were sent to persuade him of the error of his beliefs. Even some of his own family visited him, urging him to save his life by pretending a conversion which he could afterwards repudiate. He was in his middle thirties with much to live for. But he rejected all the offers, and chose a martyr's death.

Taken to his hometown of Youghal on 31st October 1602, he was marched by a troop of soldiers through the streets to the place of execution. It was the first time he had seen his home town in fifteen years. He wore the black gown of his order, which he had desired so long and loved so greatly. He knelt at the foot of the gallows and greeted it joyfully: “Hail, holy cross, so long desired by me!” Then he addressed the crowd in a mixture of Spanish, Irish and English, telling them that he had come to Ireland to defend the faith of the Holy Roman Church, which was the one true path to salvation and for which he was about to die. He was so cheerful that an English officer remarked, “He is going to his death as eagerly as I would go to a banquet”. Dominic overheard him and replied, “For this cause I would be willing to die not once but a thousand deaths”.

His words and demeanour so touched the crowd that the hangman refused to do his work. The soldiers eventually seized on a passer-by, a poor fisherman, and forced him to accept the office. He asked the victim for forgiveness, which Dominic gladly granted before mounting the ladder with the rope around his neck. Reciting a psalm, he had just reached the words "Into your hands I commend my spirit", when the fisherman pulled away the ladder; and so he died. In his life and in his death he remains one of the most attractive and lovable of all the Irish martyrs.

The following Dominicans suffered under Elizabeth (1558-1603), but the dates are uncertain:

Father MacFerge
, prior of Coleraine
24 friars of Coleraine,
32 members of the community of Derry, slain there the same night.

Eugene O'Gallagher

Abbot of the Cistercians of Assaroe, Ballyshannon -- slain there by soldiers in 1606.

Bernard O'Trevir

Prior of the Cistercians of Assaroe, Ballyshannon -- slain there by soldiers in 1606.

Bernard O'Carolan

Priest. Executed by martial law, Good Friday, 1606.

Sir John Burke

From Brittas, County Limerick. Rescued and defended with arms a priest seized by soldiers, and so was executed at Limerick, 20 December 1606.

Dermot Bruodin

Franciscan. Tortured at Limerick and died as a result in 1607.

Francis Helam (or, Helan)

Franciscan priest. Apprehended saying Mass in Drogheda, and died in prison in 1607.

Patrick O'Derry

Franciscan, priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lifford in 1607.

John O'Luin

Dominican. Hanged at Derry in 1607.

Niall O'Boyle

Franciscan. Beheaded or hanged, 15 January 1607, Co. Tyrone.

Donagh (or, William) O'Luin

Dominican prior of Derry. Hanged and quartered there in 1608.

John Lune

Priest, Ferns Diocese. Hanged and quartered, 12 November 1610, Dublin.

Blessed Cornelius (or, Conor) O'Devany (or, Conchobhar O'Duibheannaigh)

Born c. 1532. Franciscan Bishop of Down and Connor. In 1588 he was committed to Dublin Castle. Failing to convict him of any crime punishable with death, Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam sought authority from Burghley to "be rid of such an obstinate enemy of God and so rank a traitor to her Majesty as no doubt he is". He lay in prison until November, 1590, being then released ostensibly on his own petition but doubtless through policy. He was protected by O'Neill until 1607, and escaped arrest until the middle of 1611, when, almost eighty years old, he was taken while administering confirmation and again committed to Dublin Castle. On 28 January, 1612, he was tried for high treason, found guilty by the majority of a packed jury, and sentenced to die.

He was drawn on a cart from the Castle to the gallows beyond the river on 1 February 1612, in Dublin; the whole route was crowded with Catholics lamenting and begging his blessing. Protestant clergymen pestered him with ministrations and urged him to confess he died for treason. "Pray let me be", he answered, "the viceroy's messenger to me here present, could tell that I might have life and revenue for going once to that temple", pointing to a tower opposite.

On reaching the top step of the scaffold the bishop prayed aloud for all who were present. He prayed for the Catholics of Dublin and of Ireland, urging them to persevere in their faith. He prayed for all heretics and for their reunion with the Church and he forgave his persecutors. He kissed the hangman's rope, placed it around his neck, drew the veil over his face and held out his hands to be tied.

It was at this moment that an event occurred which was recorded by almost all the sources and evidently was remembered by all the witnesses. The sky had been dark and overcast all that day. Now as the sun was setting the clouds parted and the scaffold was bathed in the red glow of the setting sun. While the bishop hung on the gallows the clouds closed over again. After the bishop had been hanged the executioner cut off his head and held it up with the customary cry: 'Look on the head of a traitor'.

Blessed Patrick O'Lochran (or, Loughran, or, Pádraig Ó Lochráin)

Born c. 1577. Priest, Cork Diocese. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, on 1 February 1612, Dublin.

William McGillacunny (MacGiolla Coinigh)

Dominican. Executed at Coleraine in 1614.

Michael Fitzsimon, layman
Conn O'Kiennan

Hanged, drawn, and quartered in 1615.

Lewis O'Laverty

Priest, hanged, drawn, and quartered, 1615.

Thomas Fitzgerald

Franciscan priest. Died in prison, 12 July 1617, Dublin.

John MacConnan (or, John Oonan, or Conan)

Priest, executed by martial law, Dublin, 1618.

John Honan

Franciscan priest. Tortured, hanged, and quartered, 14 October 1618, Dublin.

Blessed Francis Taylor

Born c. 1550 in Swords, County Dublin, he was elected Dublin's mayor in 1595. Later he was imprisoned for his Catholic faith, and died in the Castle on 29 January 1621, after seven years of refusing to accept his freedom by giving up his religion.

James Eustace

Cistercian. Hanged and quartered, 6 September 1621.

Edmund Dungan

Bishop of Down and Connor -- died, 2 November 1628, Dublin Castle.

Paul (or, Patrick) Fleming

Franciscan, priest. Put to death by Protestants, 13 November 1631, at Benesabe, Bohemia.

Matthew Hore

Put to death by Protestants, 13 November 1631, at Benesabe, Bohemia.

Arthur MacGeoghegan

Dominican priest. Hanged, drawn, and quartered, 27 November 1633, Tyburn.

John Meagh

Jesuit priest. Shot, 31 May 1639, by the Swedish army near Guttenberg, Bohemia.

Philip Clery

Priest. Died in 1642.

Cormac Egan

Dominican lay brother. Died in 1642.

Raymund Keogh

Dominican priest. Shot while hearing confessions on the battlefield, in 1642.

Francis O'Mahony

Franciscan. Guardian at Cork -- tortured and hanged, regaining consciousness, he was again hanged with his girdle, in 1642.

Stephen Petit

Dominican prior at Mullingar -- shot while hearing confessions on the battlefield, in 1642.

John Clancy Edmund Hore

Priests, Waterford Diocese -- put to death, March 1642, at Dungarvan.

Blessed Peter O'Higgin (or, Higgins)

Born 1600. Ordained as a Dominican before 1627. During the Rebellion of 1641 when the Irish Ulstermen came south of the Boyne, the Catholic Lords of the Pale opted to join them while the Governor of Dublin, Sir Charles Coote, opted for a policy of "exterminate all Catholics". Law and order collapsed and plunder became a daily occurrence. Both Protestant landowners and even Catholics known to be government supporters were looted by the rebels.

Peter Higgins as Prior of Naas made efforts to restrain the violent and sheltered the homeless. He intervened to save the Protestant rector of Donadea, William Pillsworth, who was about to be put to the gallows by Catholics and upbraided the Catholics for their unchristian behaviour. In January 1642 the Earl of Ormond mobilised a Protestant force in Dublin to strike back at Catholics.

Among those taken into custody was Peter Higgins, who in fact did not resist arrest, knowing he had done so much to save and protect Protestants and that he was innocent of any crime. Ormond tried to intervene on Higgins's behalf presenting petitions from at least twenty Protestants who had known Higgins urging that the priest's life be spared. But Ormond was amazed when on the morning of 23rd March 1642 he heard that Higgins's body was hanging from a gallows in Dublin; Sir Charles Coote had executed him without trial. At the gallows Higgins was offered a chance to deny his faith, but declined saying: "I die a Catholic and a Dominican priest. I forgive from my heart all who have conspired to bring about my death. Deo gratias." Among the crowd stood William Pillsworth, rector of Donadea. He cried out: "This man is innocent, this man is innocent. He saved my life." His words fell on deaf ears. The soldiers hacked his body to pieces so that it could not be given an honourable burial.

Angelus of St. Joseph

O.D.C. Hanged, 4 May 1642, Newry.

Robert (or, Malachy) O'Shiel

Cistercian priest. Hanged, 4 May 1642, Newry.

Thomas Aquinas of Jesus

Priest, O.D.C., hanged, 6 July 1642, Drogheda.

Cornelius O'Brien

Hanged on board ship in the Shannon, by parliamentarians, October 1642.

Fergal Ward

Franciscan. Hanged on board ship in the Shannon, by parliamentarians, October 1642.

Peter of the Mother of God

Lay brother, O.D.C. Died in 1643.

Christopher Ultan (or, Donlevy)

Franciscan priest. Died in Newgate prison, London, 1644.

Cornelius O'Connor Eugene O'Daly

O.SS.T. -- drowned at sea by a Parliamentarian commander, 11 January 1644.

John Flaverty

Dominican priest. Died in 1645.

Hugh MacMahon, layman, and Conor Maguire, Baron of Enniskillen -- executed for complicity in the outbreak of the Confederate War, 1645.

Thaddæus O'Connell

Priest, O.S.A. -- executed by Parliamentarians after the battle of Sligo in 1645.

Henry White

Priest -- hanged at Rathconnell, Co. Meath, 1645.

Edmund Mulligan

Cistercian priest. Slain in July 1645, near Clones, by Parliamentarians.

Malachy O'Queely (Maolsheachlainn O Cadhla)

Archbishop of Tuam; executed at Ballipodare, 27 October, 1645.

At the storming of the Rock of Cashel by Inchiquin, 15 September 1647, Richard Barry, priest, O.P., William Boyton, priest, S.J., Richard Butler, priest, O.S.F., James Saul, lay brother, O.S.F., Elizabeth Carney, Sister Margaret, a Dominican tertiary, Theobald Stapleton, priest, Edward Stapleton, priest, Thomas Morrissey and many others, priests and women, were slain in the church.

Gerald FitzGibbon, cleric, and David Fox, lay brother at Kilmallock, Dominic O'Neaghten, lay brother, Roscommon, Peter Costello, priest, sub-prior, Straid, Co. Mayo, all Dominicans; Andrew Hickey, priest, O.S.F. -- hanged near Adare in 1648.

Dominic Dillon, Dominican prior at Urlar
Bernard Horumley (or, Gormley), Franciscan priest
Richard Oveton, Dominican prior at Athy
Peter Taaffe, O.S.A., prior at Drogheda
John Vath, Jesuit priest
Thomas Vath, secular priest

Slain in Drogheda massacre, 1649.

Didacus Cheevers, lay Franciscan
John Esmond, priest
Joseph Rochford, lay Franciscan
Peter Stafford, priest
Raymund Stafford, priest
Paul Synnott, priest

Slain in Wexford massacre, 1649.

William Lynch

Dominican priest. Hanged in 1649.

James O'Reilly

Dominican priest. Slain near Clonmel in 1649.

Robert Netterville

Jesuit priest. Died at Drogheda, 19 June 1649, of a severe beating with sticks.

Hilary Conroy

Franciscan, priest. Hanged at Gowran in 1650 by the Cromwellians.

Walter de Wallis

Franciscan priest. Hanged at Mullingar in 1650.

John Dormer

Franciscan. Died in prison, Dublin, 1650.

Boetius Egan

Franciscan Bishop of Ross, celebrated for exhorting the garrison of Carrigadrehid Castle to maintain their post against Broghill -- dismembered and hanged in 1650.

Francis Fitzgerald

Franciscan priest. Hanged, Cork, 1650.

Miler Magrath (Father Michael of the Rosary)

Dominican priest. Hanged at Clonmel in 1650.

Antony Musæus (or, Hussey)

Franciscan priest. Hanged at Mullingar in 1650.

Thomas Plunkett, Eugene O'Teman, and Twelve Other Franciscans.

Flogged and cut to pieces by soldiers in 1650.

Nicholas Ugan (or, Ulagan)

Franciscan. Hanged with his girdle, 1650.

Dominicans: John Wolfe, priest, hanged, Limerick; John O'Cuilin (Collins), priest, beheaded; William O'Connor, prior at Clonmel, beheaded, and Thomas O'Higgin, priest, hanged, Clonmel; Bernard O'Ferrall, priest, slain, his brother Laurence O'Ferrall, priest, hanged, Longford; Vincent Gerald Dillon, chaplain to Irish troops in England, died in prison, York; Ambrose Æneas O'Cahill, priest, cut to pieces by cavalry, Cork; Donagh Dubh (Black) and James Moran, lay brothers; all in 1651.

Franciscans: Denis O'Neilan, priest, hanged, Inchicronan, Co. Clare; Thaddæus O'Carrighy, priest, hanged near Ennis; Hugh McKeon, priest, died in prison, Athlone; Roger de Mara (MacNamara), priest, shot and hanged, Clare Castle; Daniel Clanchy and Jeremiah O'Nerehiny (Nerny), lay brothers, Quin, hanged; Philip Flasberry, hanged near Dublin; Francis Sullivan, priest, shot in a cave, Co. Kerry, December; William Hickey, priest, hanged; all in 1651.

Laymen: Louis O'Farrall, died in prison, Athlone; Charles O'Dowd, hanged; Donagh O'Brien, burned alive; Sir Patrick Purcell, Sir Geoffrey Galway, Thomas Strich, mayor, Dominic Fanning, ex-mayor, Daniel O'Higgin, hanged after surrender of Limerick; Henry O'Neill, Theobald de Burgo; all in 1651.

Blessed Terence Albert O'Brien

Born in 1600 or 1601. Dominican Bishop of Emly. During the Irish Confederate Wars, like most Irish Catholics, he sided with Confederate Ireland. The bishop would treat the wounded and support Confederate soldiers throughout the conflict. O'Brien would sign the declaration against Inchiquin's truce in 1648, and the declaration against Ormond in 1650. In 1651 Limerick was invaded and O'Brien urged a resistance that infuriated the Ormondists and Parliamentarians. Following surrender he was denied quarter and protection. Major General Purcell, Father Wolf and O'Brien were brought before a court martial and ordered for execution by General Henry Ireton; carried out on 31 October 1651. As he went to the gallows, he spoke to the people: "Do not weep for me, but pray that being firm and unbroken in this torment of death, I may happily finish my course." After his death by strangulation his body was left hanging for three hours and treated with indignity by the soldiers. They cut off his head and spiked it on the river gate where it remained fresh and incorrupt.

Bernard Fitzpatrick

Ossory Diocese. Died in 1652.

Hugh Garrighy
Roger Ormilius (or, Gormley)

Secular priests. Hanged, Co. Clare, 1652.

Cornelius MacCarthy

Died in Co. Kerry in 1652.

Anthony Broder, deacon
Sliabh Luachra
Eugene O'Cahan, guardian at Ennis
Bonaventure de Burgo
Nielan Locheran, priest

Franciscans hanged in 1652 (first three near Tuam; last two at Derry).

Edmund O'Bern, Dominican priest
Anthony O'Ferrall, priest, Tulsk
John O'Ferrall;

Beheaded after torture, Jamestown, 1652.

Edmund Butler, Dublin
Brigid D'Arcy
Bernard McBriody
Thaddæus O'Connor Sligo, Boyle
John O'Conor Kerry, Tralee
Thaddæus O'Conor of Bealnamelly in Connaught
Conn O'Rorke

Laymen hanged in 1652.

Dominicans: Thaddæus Moriarty, prior at Tralee, hanged, Killarney; Bernard O'Kelly, priest or lay brother, Galway; David Roche, priest, sold into slavery, St. Kitts; Honoria Burke and her maid, Honoria Magan, tertiaries, Burrishoole; Daniel Delany, P.P., Arklow, hanged, Gorey; all in 1653.

Blessed John Kearney

Born 1619. Ordained a priest in 1642 after his studies in Louvain, he was captured on his return to Ireland, but managed to escape. He ministered as a priest first in Cashel and later in Waterford. In 1653 he was captured again, taken to Clonmel and charged with functioning as a priest in defiance of the law. Witnesses testified that he had celebrated and administered the sacraments. He was hanged on 11th March 1653.

Augustinians: Donagh O'Kennedy, Donagh Serenan, Fulgentius Jordan, Raymund O'Malley, John Tullis, and Thomas Deir, at Cork; all in 1654.

Bernard Conney, O.S.F., died in Galway jail
Mary Roche, Viscountess Fermoy, Cork

Died in 1654.

Blessed William Tirry

Born 1608. Augustinian priest. He returned to Ireland in 1641, and in 1649 was chosen as Prior (local superior) of the Augustinian house in Skreen. This was the same year that marked the beginning of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. A law was enacted on January 6, 1653 declaring that any Roman Catholic priest in Ireland was guilty of treason. Tirry was forced into hiding alongside other priests, but was captured when three men reported his whereabouts for money. William was imprisoned at Clonmel and refused to adopt the Protestant religion. He was executed by hanging on May 12, 1654. An account told by a friar who had been tried with William supplies some details of the day: "William, wearing his Augustinian habit, was led to the gallows praying the rosary. He blessed the crowd which had gathered, pardoned his betrayers and affirmed his faith. It was a moving moment for Catholics and Protestants alike." Many miracles were reported after this death.

Luke Bergin, Cistercian
James Murchu
Daniel O'Brien, dean of Ferns

Hanged on 14 April 1655.

Raymund O'Moore

Dominican priest. Died in 1665 in Dublin.

Felix O'Conor

Dominican priest. Died in 1679 in Sligo.

Gerald Fitzgibbon

Dominican priest. Died in 1691 in Listowel.

Patrick Russell

Born 1629. Archbishop of Dublin. After harrassment and arrest following the defeat of the Jacobite army at the Boyne, died in a filthy underground prison in Dublin in 1692.


John O'Murrough

Dominican priest. Died in 1695 in Cork.

Donchus O'Falvey (or, Daniel Falvey)

Priest or friar, at Kerry in 1703.

Clement O'Colgan

Dominican priest. Died in 1704 in Derry.

Daniel McDonnell

Dominican priest. Died in 1707 in Galway.

Felix McDowell

Dominican priest. Died in 1707 in Dublin.

James O'Hegarty

Priest, Died in the Derry Diocese around 1711.

Dominic McEgan

Dominican priest. Died in 1713 in Dublin.

Uncertain Dates

Forty Cistercians of Monasternenagh, Co. Limerick
Dominicans: John O'Loughlin, and Two Others, at Kilmallock.
Franciscans: James Chevers, James Roche, John Mocleus (or, Mockler), Daniel O'Boyle

Thomas Fleming, layman
Dermot MacCarrha (MacCarthy), priest
John O'Grady, priest
Daniel O'Hanan, layman, died in prison.


Further Irish Martyr and Confessor Resources

Irish Catholic Martyrs (Wikipedia)

The Irish Martyrs (CatholicIreland.Net)

Chapters towards a History of Ireland in the Reign of Elizabeth (book by Philip O'Sullivan Beare)

The Martyrs of Ireland (four DVDs from Bob and Penny Lord)

Irish Martyrs (New Catholic Dictionary: long listing of names)

Lives of the Irish Martyrs and Confessors (book by Myles O'Reilly)

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Second-Hand Smoke: Scientific Documentation of its Harmfulness




1) Secondhand smoke dramatically increases the risk of heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers and can be controlled only by making indoor spaces smoke-free, according to a comprehensive report issued yesterday by U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona.

"The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought," Carmona said. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

According to the report, the government's most detailed statement ever on secondhand smoke, exposure to smoke at home or work increases the nonsmokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. It is especially dangerous for children living with smokers and is known to cause sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory problems, ear infections and asthma attacks in infants and children. [ source ]

2) Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions

Deborah E. Barnes, MPH; Lisa A. Bero, PhD

JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). 1998;279:1566-1570.

Objective.— To determine whether the conclusions of review articles on the health effects of passive smoking are associated with article quality, the affiliations of their authors, or other article characteristics.

Data Sources.— Review articles published from 1980 to 1995 were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE and from a database of symposium proceedings on passive smoking. . . .

Data Extraction.— Review article quality was evaluated by 2 independent assessors who were trained, followed a written protocol, had no disclosed conflicts of interest, and were blinded to all study hypotheses and identifying characteristics of articles. Article conclusions were categorized by the 2 assessors and by one of the authors. Author affiliation was classified as either tobacco industry affiliated or not, based on whether the authors were known to have received funding from or participated in activities sponsored by the tobacco industry. Other article characteristics were classified by one of the authors using predefined criteria.

Data Synthesis.— A total of 106 reviews were identified. Overall, 37% (39/106) of reviews concluded that passive smoking is not harmful to health; 74% (29/39) of these were written by authors with tobacco industry affiliations. In multiple logistic regression analyses controlling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of publication, the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry (odds ratio, 88.4; 95% confidence interval, 16.4-476.5; P<.001).

Conclusions
.— The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors. Authors of review articles should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest, and readers of review articles should consider authors' affiliations when deciding how to judge an article's conclusions.

From the Department of Public Health Biology and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley (Ms Barnes), and the Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine, and the Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Bero). Ms Barnes was a research associate at the Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, during the time this study was conducted.

Related article:

3) Beyond conflict of interest

Editorial: BMJ (British Medical Journal) 1998;317:291-292 ( 1 August )

Some people have taken the view that conflict of interest is a lot of fuss about nothing, or, worse, that identifying people's conflicts of interest is a form of McCarthyism. Those who argue against concerns about conflict of interest say that science is science, methods are transparent, data either support the conclusions or do not, and it is neither here nor there whether researchers have, for example, shares in a company that manufactures a drug included in a trial.

This argument is becoming steadily less tenable as evidence accumulates on the influence of conflict of interest. Several studies have shown that financial benefit will make doctors more likely to refer patients for tests, operations, or hospital admission, or to ask that drugs be stocked by a hospital pharmacy. Now we are beginning to have data on the effects of
conflict of interest on publications. Original papers published in journal supplements sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are inferior to those published in the parent journal. Reviews that acknowledge sponsorship by the pharmaceutical or tobacco industry are more likely to draw conclusions that are favourable to the industry.

. . . The second study, published in JAMA, looked at what characteristics determined the conclusions of review articles on passive smoking. The authors identified 106 reviews, with 37% concluding that passive smoking was not harmful and the rest that it was. A multiple regression analysis controlling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of
publication found that the only factor associated with the review's conclusion was whether the author was affiliated with the tobacco industry. Three quarters of the articles concluding that passive smoking was not harmful were written by tobacco industry affiliates. The study authors suggest that "the tobacco industry may be attempting to influence scientific opinion by flooding the scientific literature with large numbers of review articles supporting its position that passive smoking is not harmful to health." Again, only a minority of the articles (23%) disclosed the sources of funding for research. The authors had to use their own database of researchers linked with the tobacco industry to determine whether authors had such links.

These two papers and their predecessors begin to build a solid case that conflict of interest has an impact on the conclusions reached by papers in medical journals. They also show convincingly that medical journals are failing to get authors to declare conflicts of interest.

4) Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms

Elisa K. Ong, MD, MS and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

November 2001, Vol 91, No. 11 | American Journal of Public Health 1749-1757

ABSTRACT

The tobacco industry has attacked "junk science" to discredit the evidence that secondhand smoke—among other environmental toxins—causes disease. Philip Morris used public relations firms and lawyers to develop a "sound science" program in the United States and Europe that involved recruiting other industries and issues to obscure the tobacco industry's role. The European "sound science" plans included a version of "good epidemiological practices" that would make it impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke—and thus other environmental toxins—caused diseases.

Public health professionals need to be aware that the "sound science" movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients.

5) The miseries of passive smoking

Ed Nelson

Toxicology Laboratory, Institute of Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center, D-45147 Essen, Germany

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 20, No. 2, 61-83 (2001)

Passive smoking is defined as an involuntary exposure to a combined but diluted cigarette sidestream smoke (SS, gas and particle phases that are evolved fromthe smoldering end ofacigarettewhilethesmokerisnotpuffing) andthe exhaled smoke from smokers. SS contains numerous cytotoxic substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic
amines, nitrosamines, heavy metals, poisonous gases, pesticide residues, and radioactive elements in quantities much higher than those found from the cigarette mainstream smoke (MS) which is puffed by smokers. Passive smoking is found to be the cause of death from cancers and cardiac disease. Furthermore, it damagingly involves reproductive organs, the nervous system, genetic materials, and is particularly hazardous to mother and child during pregnancy and to those with a history of asthma, chronic infections, induced or earned immune deficiency, or predisposed susceptibility.

6) Prenatal and Postnatal Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Children’s Health

Joseph R. DiFranza, MD*, C. Andrew Aligne, MD, MPH{ddagger} and Michael Weitzman, MD{ddagger},§

Pediatrics Vol. 113 No. 4 April 2004, pp. 1007-1015

Children’s exposure to tobacco constituents during fetal development and via environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure is perhaps the most ubiquitous and hazardous of children’s environmental exposures. A large literature links both prenatal maternal smoking and children’s ETS exposure to decreased lung growth and increased rates of respiratory tract infections, otitis media, and childhood asthma, with the severity of these problems increasing with increased exposure. Sudden infant death syndrome, behavioral problems, neurocognitive decrements, and increased rates of adolescent smoking also are associated with such exposures. Studies of each of these problems suggest independent effects of both pre- and postnatal exposure for each, with the respiratory risk associated with parental smoking seeming to be greatest during fetal development and the first several years of life.

7) The Smoke You Don't See: Uncovering Tobacco Industry Scientific Strategies Aimed Against Environmental Tobacco Smoke Policies

Monique E. Muggli, MPH, Jean L. Forster, PhD, MPH, Richard D. Hurt, MD and James L. Repace, MSc

September 2001, Vol 91, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health 1419-1423

Objectives. This review details the tobacco industry's scientific campaign aimed against policies addressing environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and efforts to undermine US regulatory agencies from approximately 1988 to 1993.

Methods. The public availability of more than 40 million internal, once-secret tobacco company documents allowed an unedited and historical look at tobacco industry strategies.

Results. The analysis showed that the tobacco industry went to great lengths to battle the ETS issue worldwide by camouflaging its involvement and creating an impression of legitimate, unbiased scientific research.

Conclusions. There is a need for further international monitoring of industry-produced science and for significant improvements in tobacco document accessibility.

8) Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke Nearly as Large as Smoking

Joaquin Barnoya, MD, MPH; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Circulation. 2005;111:2684-2698.

Background— Secondhand smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease by {approx}30%. This effect is larger than one would expect on the basis of the risks associated with active smoking and the relative doses of tobacco smoke delivered to smokers and nonsmokers.

Methods and Results— We conducted a literature review of the research describing the mechanistic effects of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular system, emphasizing research published since 1995, and compared the effects of secondhand smoke with the effects of active smoking. Evidence is rapidly accumulating that the cardiovascular system—platelet and endothelial function, arterial stiffness, atherosclerosis, oxidative stress, inflammation, heart rate variability, energy metabolism, and increased infarct size—is exquisitely sensitive to the toxins in secondhand smoke. The effects of even brief (minutes to hours) passive smoking are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking.

Conclusions— The effects of secondhand smoke are substantial and rapid, explaining the relatively large risks that have been reported in epidemiological studies.

9) Tobacco Industry Efforts Undermining Evidence Linking Secondhand Smoke With Cardiovascular Disease

Elisa K. Tong, MD, MA; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

Circulation. 2007;116:1845-1854.

Background— The scientific consensus that secondhand smoke (SHS) increases cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by 30% is based on epidemiological and biological evidence. The tobacco industry has contested this evidence that SHS causes CVD, but how and why they have done it has not been described.

Conclusions— The tobacco industry attempted to undermine the evidence that SHS causes CVD to fight smoke-free regulations while developing approaches to support new products that claim to reduce harm. The industry interest in preserving corporate viability has affected the design and interpretation of their cardiovascular studies, indicating the need for great caution in current debates about future tobacco industry regulation and development of reduced-harm tobacco products.

10) Mortality and morbidity from coronary heart disease attributable to passive smoking

Jan Heidrich, Jürgen Wellmann, Peter U. Heuschmann, Klaus Kraywinkel and Ulrich Keil

European Heart Journal 2007 28(20):2498-2502; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm151

Aims: Passive smoking is associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). This study estimates CHD mortality and morbidity attributable to passive smoking in Germany and demonstrates variations in the number of estimated deaths depending on underlying assumptions.

Conclusion: The estimated burden of passive smoking heavily depends on the definition of underlying parameters. Using an evidence-based approach reveals a substantial burden of passive smoking in terms of CHD mortality and morbidity reflected by six CHD deaths and 10 incident CHD cases every day in Germany.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Is Smoking a Sin? / Diatribe on the Inadequacy and Unbiblical Nature of Libertarian Philosophy



Healthy vs. Cancerous Lung

[ source ]

These are some related thoughts that have come up in different discussions on the CHNI board. My thoughts here are not honed and refined: just thrown out "off the cuff" for consideration. The discussion in one case was about whether drinking alcohol was a sin. An analogy to sports was made (somewhat facetiously, as it turned out). It was said that playing sports sometimes causes brain or spinal cord injuries, or serious ongoing knee problems, etc. Therefore, why do people play sports if there are such serious risks?

* * * * *

Interesting analogy. I'll take a crack at it.

The difference is that sports are a calculated risk, whereas something like alcohol abuse or smoking are known harmful things that are always or intrinsically harmful (alcohol at the point of abuse, not absolutely any alcohol).

When one says: "sports are dangerous" as opposed to "smoking is dangerous" this is really meant (when closely analyzed) in two different ways. Playing sports is dangerous in the way that driving cars or climbing a very tall mountain is dangerous. There is a known risk involved. So many people will be killed or injured. We know this will occur without doubt. Yet it doesn't stop us from driving. And that is because the percentages and risks are very small, comparatively speaking, so that the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Sports are the same. Some will get a spinal injury. A baseball player was killed in 1920 when struck by a pitch. Some basketball players can have a heart attack and die (that happened to Reggie Lewis of the Celtics, as I recall). But these are tiny percentages as well.

Therefore, the analogy breaks down, because something like smoking has overwhelming risk in doing it at all. To know that yet to keep doing it is (I would argue) an abuse of our bodies. Alcohol becomes the same harmful thing in excess, or for an alcoholic.

* * *

Someone else -- following up on this argument -- argued that the sport of professional boxing was "objectively immoral." My reply:

I think boxing is the sport that comes closest to being classified as "abuse" (if one wishes to make that argument); however, I reject the notion that it is objectively immoral on the basis of reductio ad absurdum. Any number of physical activities, after all, would cause one to be exhausted and "physically unable to stand on his feet."

I mentioned in this very thread about climbing Mt. Washington in New Hampshire. I couldn't stand over and over, my 49 yo, sports-weakened knees hurt so bad at the top of that monster. It's a willful activity that leads to physical exhaustion after a while.

If we say that boxing is objectively immoral, what about mountain climbing (serious climbing, like Mt. Everest)? People die doing that, or get frostbite and lose toes and fingers. You could sever your spine in a fall. So no one should ever climb a mountain? Moses couldn't have even gone up on Mt. Sinai.

How about marathons or the bicycling in Tour de France? Are they not utterly exhausting? Sonny Bono was killed by running into a tree, while downhill skiing. So now that sport is out, too?

We can't avoid risks in life. Some sports, granted, carry a much greater risk factor (e.g., auto racing, boxing). But I think it is only a matter of degree, not of essence. Boxers agree to undergo possible harm. That is the difference. But if someone comes up to you on the street and punches your face and breaks your nose and rearranges your jaw, that is, of course, a sin, because you didn't voluntarily participate in that, train for it, etc.

I don't think the case can be made. Smoking is very close to "objectively immoral," but even there, the Church has apparently not declared it to be a sin, and it certainly has not done so with regard to boxing.

Based on your first argument, I attempted to draw analogies and create a reductio ad absurdum: if "a goal of reducing another to a state of being physically unable to stand on one's feet" is objectively immoral, then why not also mountain climbing, and foot race and bicycle marathons?

Granted, the goal of those things is not to be unable to stand (it is getting to the top or first to the finish line), yet being unable to stand will be a virtual inevitable result, so the actual end result is the same. Therefore - so I argued -- your argument fails unless you also condemn these other sports. No analogy is absolutely perfect because analogy is not equation.

It also occurs to me that it isn't possible to say about boxing that the goal is always the knockout for the ten-count, for matches are often decided without one, or without even a knockdown (falling down but getting up before a ten-count). The goal is to get more points than the other guy by more direct hits and relatively less received. The secondary goal of a knockdown or knockout help bring about victory: the former by probability and the latter by certainty. If the knockout was the only criterion of victory then matches would continue until it occurred. But instead they are predetermined to have so many rounds and then end.

I'm not trying to "argue" -- if by that one means being obnoxious or contentious -- but simply responding to a very serious claim that a sport (one that I have enjoyed myself) is "objectively immoral." The strong claim requires a strong response. I am arguing by logic and what the actual facts of the matter are according to the self-definition and competitive goals of professional boxing.

* * *

I've written a paper on alcohol: Alcohol: Biblical and Catholic Teaching. As for cigarettes, I think that is more clear cut and not merely an issue of moderation: it is an abuse of our bodies, period. We know that it causes cancer. We know that even secondary smoke has serious negative health effects. It can also cause emphysema. My father has lung cancer because of it (but he is doing remarkably well for all that). I remember a chain-smoking neighbor who slowly died of emphysema. These aren't pretty sights, and in most cases they were completely preventable.
Arguably, it is wrong to do anything that mutilates or harms our body.

* * *

I never said, myself (lest anyone think this) that smoking was a mortal sin. It would be tough to make that argument, even in the objective sense, let alone subjective. I think one would have to greatly misunderstand the nature of addiction, to try to do the latter.

What I said was that there is little doubt now that smoking harms your body in a serious manner. And it is not a good thing to do anything that does that, whether it is technically a "sin" or not. I think it's very borderline; quite a complex thing to discuss. The same arguments can be made for overeating, lack of exercise, lack of sleep, eating lousy, unhealthy foods to the detriment of healthy foods, or over-dependence on various medications and drugs.

It's a very tricky business because it is so much a matter of degree. Gluttony and drunkenness are clearly sins; eating a Twinkie or sipping a Scotch are clearly not. My wife and I have followed a pretty strict health food diet for 25 years. We try to avoid white sugar as much as possible, and eat whole foods as much as we can (financially permitting). We like natural, whole foods (based on serious, scientific studies on what is more healthy and health-promoting). But we never tell our kids that not doing that is a sin, because we don't believe that. They get the usual candy at Halloween and Easter and at Christmas parties. We're not legalistic at all about this.

We simply tell them the principles that we have learned and try to live by, and give them this kind of food, as much as it is in our power. If they don't want to eat this way when they're grown up, fine. Consequently, however, none of them have grown up with the terrible "junk food junkie" mentality" that I grew up with, because my mother is crazy about sweet stuff. They don't even crave sweets half as much as I do myself.

I would go beyond the "legal" question and ask, "whether smoking is a sin or not, do you really want to do something that has been proven beyond any doubt to harm your body, and to take off years of your life (statistically)? Do you want to deprive your spouse or kids or parents, or friends, of possibly many years of your life because you refused to stop doing what you should have known full well was harmful?"

That works whether it is considered sinful or not. It's a matter of charity towards our loved ones and stewardship of the bodies and good health that God gave us.

* * *

The issue is a bit more complicated than people often make out. Let me try to make a somewhat tentative argument. I'm "thinking out loud"; not trying to speak in "dogmatic" terms. The Church teaches that it is a sin to mutilate our bodies; for example to have a vasectomy. It's wrong because it is doing things to our bodies that are harmful and not intended to be that way by God. The Church would also oppose the practice of clitorectomies, that take place in, for example, Africa, so that women will not experience as much sexual pleasure. These things are intrinsically wrong.

In the case of vasectomy, we are trying to avoid causing a conception altogether and to engage in contraception, which is itself an intrinsically disordered, sinful act. So it is already wrong on those grounds, but it also goes against the natural way a (male) body is supposed to operate.

The analogy to smoking isn't perfect (very few analogies are), but I would say it is reasonable to argue that if we know beyond any doubt that smoking is antithetical to lung functions, and yet keep doing it, that this is wrong, and indeed, may be a sin, because by our action we are deliberately causing physical injury to ourselves. What would we say if we stabbed someone in the kidney and they had to have it removed? That is wrong not only because it was attacking another and causing them pain, but because that person's body is now not fully operative in the way it was intended to be.

Now, is it essentially different when we are talking about our own bodies? No. It is a serious sin to commit suicide. The Church doesn't agree with assisted suicide and euthanasia, because our bodies are not our own, and we are made in the image of God, with eternal souls created directly by God, and we are the temples of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not libertarian: we don't "own" our own bodies; God does. We don't own the bodies of our preborn children, and so cannot kill them as we please. It is a serious sin.

Therefore, if it is wrong to cause harm to other persons' bodies, it is also wrong to cause harm to our own, by the same principle of our bodies being given to us as a gift of God, so that we are stewards of them. In a sense, we're "renting" our bodies from God the Creator.

Nor can we say in the case of smoking, that it only affects us -- just as libertarians argue that drugs and pornography and homosexual acts only have consequences for those who are doing that and no one else. And that is because we know now that second-hand smoke also can do harm to other people (not nearly as much, but still some).

I grew up my entire childhood, breathing the smoke from my father's cigarettes. I also grew up in southwest Detroit breathing the pollution from the Ford Rouge Plant, just a mile and a half away (the largest factory in the world, at least at one time). Pollution was sort of like smoking on a huge scale. These factories were belching out harmful smoke with little or no control, until the 1970s and a greater awareness of the environment (and it's not just radical, wacko, far left hysteria: pollution of air and water is objectively, demonstratively a bad thing).

So Ford (where my dad worked, like a typical Detroiter) and other companies got up to speed and did a better job there. In fact, Ford is doing quite a bit environmentally, now, because I just took the tour of the factory in the last few weeks, and they were describing a number of (rather fascinating) environmental programs that the plant is now promoting and practicing.

Cigarette smoke is known (without any doubt) to harm our lungs especially. Why would anyone want to do that (even apart from the sin question)? There is an aspect of this (I agree with another commenter) that is just plain stupid, whether it is technically a "sin" or not. Who would go around bashing their foot or hand with a lead pipe, so that it became increasingly damaged? Who would stab their ear so that 47% of the hearing were lost over time? Who would scrape their back with a sharp object so that it became raw and infected and permanently harmed, or try to deliberately break a finger or a toe?

All of that is considered irrational, "nutty" behavior. Yet if someone smokes and smokes and destroys their lung capacity and sets themselves up for cancer, is that not wrong and dumb, too, on the same grounds? I don't see any difference. Perhaps someone can explain to me what the difference would be.

Who would make a theoretical choice where there were two doors (like Let's Make a Deal) and two paths to choose from?:

Door A: a "healthy" lifestyle which is less "fun" but which will render it statistically probable that you can live a healthy, fairly happy life up to age 75-85 or even longer.

Door B: a lot more fun of a life with stuff like excessive alcohol intake and smoking and junk food that will "fulfill" the person at the time but which will cause a great statistical likelihood of cancer and other debilitating diseases and a loss of 10, 15, 20 years off of the person's lifespan, so that they have a much greater likelihood of dying "early" (and often in horrible, tragic fashion).

Now, would a rational person who cares about his own life and body and about his loved ones, deliberately choose Door B (and, by the way, Door B is also the "choice" of the active homosexual, because we know beyond a doubt, that this lifestyle is unhealthy and takes many years off of lives, statistically)? Yet with the issue of smoking, in effect, millions choose Door B and seem to think little of it.

Whether smoking is a sin or not, I'm not sure. Now I am curious and would like to research this, in terms of what Catholics and other Christians have thought. I suspect that it will be a borderline thing. But at the very least it is an irrational and stupid choice, and I think there are strong arguments to abstain from it whether it is a sin or not. Not everything that is "legal" is necessarily "good", which is a far smaller category. The Christian ought to pursue what is good and life-affirming and edifying.

And I say this without the least judgment of persons at all (and not the slightest pretense that I am "better" than anyone else). I'm just looking at the thing itself, and I see no good coming from it at all. If the pleasure of it is sought, certainly are plenty of other pleasures that can substitute, without the harm done. I would say it is an act of charity to try to reason with the smoker to stop. After all, it is their life and the life of their loved ones who is harmed. My own father has lung cancer, as I write, because he wouldn't listen to reason and stop smoking years ago.

Someone argued that "Nicotine, like caffeine is a neurotransmitter analogue and in small doses can relieve stress." I'm sure it can. But there are tons of natural tranquilizers and sedatives that can do the same with absolutely no harm or side effects. Niacin from Vitamin B does that. So does calcium and magnesium. There are a number of herbs that are quite calming, like chamomile or valerian root. There are now a great many natural anti-depressants, such as St. John's Wort and SAM-e. My wife takes natural amino acids to relive her tendency to mild depression (as I have written about). There need not be the risks or side effects involved, and there is no addiction, either. Even exercise is known to relieve stress. Talking and laughing does that. Why should anyone seek that benefit from something that is known to harm and to be addictive? It's not a rational choice.

* * * * * * * *

Christianity is not libertarianism. It's valid for folks to be concerned with acts and behaviors that may harm others or cause them to stumble. It's the Christian charity for others that comes into play here. Mere legalism doesn't care about that, because it is all about "rights" and not "what's right."

Someone wants to argue by libertarian principles? St. Paul in the Bible also has principles too, that he tries to live by (and he calls us several times to imitate him). For example:
Romans 14:13-21

Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats; it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.
This is biblical ethics. It goes beyond what I can do or not do, to considerations of how my actions may affect others. Libertarianism doesn't give a damn about that: it is all about "my right to do this, and if you don't like it, you can lump it." Libertarianism assumes that "I am not my brother's keeper" and that my actions do not affect others. That's why libertarians defend things like pornography and mind-altering drugs and even legal prostitution. It's brought us wonders like abortion and assisted suicide. And I'm the first to say, by the way, that I think this libertarian mentality has infested both US political parties. The thought of many conservatives is shot through with this unbiblical sort of thinking. Smoking (or the "right to smoke") might be another instance where libertarian reasoning is often utilized.

Oftentimes, folks are not personally libertarian, but they will argue like one, having been influenced by those cultural currents (whether they are aware of it or not), and they are not being sufficiently biblical and Christian in their outlook.

Note that St. Paul above even says to refrain from a thing that is good in and of itself, if it stumbles someone else. This is highly significant. Even if something is a perfectly good thing, and it is causing stumbling, that alone is reason enough for a Christian to refrain from it. That ain't "self-righteousness"; it is plain old biblical, Christian, Catholic, Pauline righteousness. See also 1 Corinthians 8:
1 Corinthians 8:8-13

Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.
I remember being at a wedding once, way back in 1981, when I was just starting to be a serious evangelical Christian. One of the persons at our table said, "I'm not gonna drink wine, because our friend x is a recovering alcoholic, and I don't want to do anything to make him stumble." I was profoundly affected by that and distinctly remember the incident. This woman (who later returned to the Church, by the way) was applying Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and showing profound love and concern for a fellow Christian who was weak in that regard.

This is Christianity. This is communal Christianity, not a bunch of renegade individuals strictly concerned with themselves, like the "Me Generation" or the stupid "rugged individualism" so beloved in American culture from the beginning. Chances are that Wyatt Earp and Buffalo Bill, riding off into the sunset, couldn't care less about Christianity. They probably didn't even go to church. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they didn't. And if they happened to be good Christians, I'm sure one could produce many other examples of the "American individualist" who were not, and in part because of this unChristian mentality of the atomistic individual, in no need of a Christian community, and clueless about the necessary relationship with others in the Church (whether Protestant or Catholic).

Another libertarian argument we often hear, and which is very widespread now in Christian circles, is the compartmentalization of life, so that certain areas are seen to be separate from Christianity, and our own little domain, away from God and faith and religion.

But the Church and Christianity deal with all aspects of life. Jesus is Lord of all of life. To deny this and to reserve various areas of life immune from the influence of God, is pure libertarianism and postmodernism. The Catholic, Christian, biblical worldview utterly rejects this. All of creation is God's; therefore, God can give instruction, through His revelation and Church, regarding every aspect of life and Christianity has something valuable to say about everything.

We don't make an absolute separation between science and religion. Hence, we oppose the materialism in science that wants to pretend that God had no part in the material universe whatsoever, even though science (by its very definition and essence) can't say anything about that, since it deals with matter, and God is Spirit. It's a self-contradiction. The truly scientific position (i.e., by science's own internal self-definition) is to be agnostic on the question of God. But atheist scientists (people like Richard Dawkins) are often more atheist than scientific and they insist on meddling into religious matters, when (usually) they are profoundly ignorant of same. And some Christians meddle into science when they don't have a clue (such as young-earth creationists). It's the same mistake from opposite ends of the spectrum.

Christianity doesn't separate reason from faith. It is my own life's work to connect the two, and I'm very honored and excited to be involved in that endeavor, as an apologist. Christianity doesn't take the view that what goes on behind closed doors is "none of God's business." It certainly is! Hence, we condemn homosexual acts not only because they are intrinsically wrong, but because they DO affect other people, besides the ones doing the sin, even in terms of health, despite all the libertarian, secular nonsense we hear, that there is no such effect, and all people are atomistic individuals, as if they lived in a bubble.

Catholicism abhors abortion precisely because every conceived child is made in the image of God and has a soul specially created by God. The mother does not own her child and cannot do with him or her whatever she likes. That may fit with Roman paganism or a slave mentality or modern-day Democratic platforms, but is utterly opposed to Christianity. And so we are the preeminent pro-lifers, because we refuse to grant that there are areas of life where God has no relevance.

That's why Christians are almost always in the forefront of social change for the better, because that is part of God's world, too. Hence, William Wilberforce conducted virtually a one-man crusade to abolish the slave-trade and all slavery in England, and succeeded (in 1807 and 1833). Martin Luther King was a Baptist preacher. Pope John Paul II and Lutherans in Germany and other Christians in Eastern Europe and Russia (folks like Solzhenitsyn) played key roles in bringing down Soviet Communism.

But Margaret Sanger, who crusaded for contraception, and founded Planned Parenthood, was a blatant racist who admired the Nazi eugenics programs.

Etc., etc., etc. So I hope we can all realize that it is not true to think that the Church ends where our house begins. God is everywhere and the Church is concerned with all areas of life. No exceptions. That doesn't mean that we aren't allowed think (a whole 'nother discussion that I'd be more than happy to take up).

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah as Actual Historical Figures: the Biblical Evidence and Catholic Agreement With It


Abraham's Sacrifice, Rembrandt, c. 1637.

Was Abraham the first "real" person, referred to in the Bible, and do Catholics believe such a thing?



On the CHNI board where I moderate, one of the members told of a horror story where a person who was leading a Bible study taught that Abraham was "the first character in the Bible that we [Catholics] believe actually existed" and that "Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, etc. may simply have been literary devices." Here is my reply:

* * * * *

His opinion is sheer nonsense and not Catholic teaching. If Adam and Eve are not regarded as actual human beings, and the parents of the human race, then the doctrine of the Fall of man goes down with that, and we are smack dab in the middle of the Pelagian heresy, which holds that man is saved by his own works, and is not in need of being rescued from a fallen condition. The fall is clearly taught in the Bible; especially by St. Paul.

The Catechism refers to Adam and Eve eight times, and ties in their rebellion to the fall of man at least three times (#399, 404, 417).

Cain and Abel are referred to as actual human beings twice, and their actions also connected to original sin.

God made a covenant with Noah. It's pretty difficult to make a covenant with an imaginary, fictional person. Thus, the Catechism refers to Noah and the flood, and what is called the Noachic Covenant, nine times.

There is also abundant NT evidence of the casual assumption that all these early human beings were indeed historical figures. Paul connects Adam with Moses, in Romans 5:14. In 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 15:45 he draws a direct parallel between Adam and Jesus Christ: the one bringing death upon the human race, and the other being the cause of spiritual and eternal life (pretty weird, if Adam didn't even exist historically). He again mentions Adam and Eve and assumes they were real persons, in 1 Timothy 2:13-14. Jude 14 describes Enoch as a descendant of Adam. St. Paul refers to Eve as having been deceived by the devil, in 2 Corinthians 11:3.

Our Lord Jesus refers quite literally to Abel:
Matthew 23:34-35 (RSV) Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (cf. Lk 11:51)
The author of Hebrews includes Abel in his catalogue of the heroes of the faith:
Hebrew 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking. (also, he refers to "the blood of Abel" in 12:24)
Noah is included in this same recitation of heroic faith. Note how Abraham is mentioned in the next verse. There is no indication whatsoever that one was a real person and the other a mythical figure only:
Hebrews 11:7-8 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.
St. Peter believed that Noah was a real person too:
1 Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, . . .

2 Peter 2:4-5,9 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; . . . then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,
Again, the text moves from the fallen angels to Noah, and then to Lot (2:7), who lived in the time of Abraham, and was his nephew, to the time he was writing. Paul is arguing by analogy: "God rescued Noah and Lot; He can do the same for you today." This makes absolutely no sense if the earlier people are imaginary, because you would have the real fallen angels (demons), then the imaginary Noah, then back to reality with Lot and the early Christians. This utterly violates the tenor and nature of the passage, as is the case in similar passages noted above.

I would urge anyone to stop attending a study "led" by a person this ignorant (or obstinately dissident), unless they are in a position to correct him (which usually doesn't work very long, of course, to have "students" habitually correcting the error of the "teacher"). I have no patience whatsoever for people like this (as is surely obvious). They lead others astray. They are the "blind leading the blind," that Jesus talked about. And they will be in deep trouble on Judgment Day if they persist on perpetuating serious error:
James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Clarifications of the Positions of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI Regarding the Mediatrix / "Coredemptrix" Mariological Matter


Many Protestants (especially the tiny minority of anti-Catholics among Protestants) are under the false impression that the teaching of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mediatrix is somehow a new, novel thing, and that if these notions are proclaimed as the Fifth Marian Dogma, that the Catholic Church will turn a new page of ever-more outrageous heresy and unbiblical excess. Some Catholics (many of whom have not studied the issue in much depth at all) also join in on this needless alarm. This is incorrect on all counts, as I have repeatedly shown (see my many papers listed below).

A sub-argument of this strain of thought likes to make out that Pope John Paul II did not agree with the dogma at all. This is also incorrect. Pope John Paul did not reject any additional titles for Mary as unnecessary, in the sense that they are ruled out for good. He was not "against" these things at all. He merely thought that the time had not yet come to define them.

That's no different than the Church waiting until 1950 to define the Assumption of Mary as de fide, ex cathedra dogma, even though it was a firmly entrenched dogma for many centuries, or till 1870 to define papal infallibility. In both cases, the tradition had already been very strongly established for many hundreds of years . Mediatrix was a title used in Vatican II.

The present Holy Father used the term Mediatrix in a homily of 1 January 2007. He believes no differently, as he is very much (like his predecessor) a "man of Vatican II." Pope John Paul II has used the term Co-Redemptrix in his own writings at least five times (as I will document below), and has also frequently expressed the conceptual equivalent, without using that word. Here are several examples:
26 September 1986:

These devotions seek to direct our attention to Christ and to the role of his Mother in the mystery of Redemption . . .

We see symbolised in the heart of Mary her maternal love, her singular sanctity and her central role in the redemptive mission of her Son.

Our act of consecration refers ultimately to the heart of her Son, for as the Mother of Christ she is wholly united to his redemptive mission.

9 April 1997
(General Audience: "Mary's Co-Operation is Totally Unique")

Moreover, when the Apostle Paul says: “For we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), he maintains the real possibility for man to co-operate with God. The collaboration of believers, which obviously excludes any equality with him, is expressed in the proclamation of the Gospel and in their personal contribution to its taking root in human hearts.

However, applied to Mary, the term ‘co-operator’ acquires a specific meaning. The collaboration of Christians in salvation takes place after the Calvary event, whose fruits they endeavor to spread by prayer and sacrifice. Mary, instead, co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with the Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity.

15 August 2001:

Paul's words that we have just heard in the Second Reading help us to understand the significance of the solemnity we are celebrating today. Christ's definitive victory over death, which came into the world because of Adam's sin, shines out in Mary, assumed into Heaven at the end of her earthly life. It was Christ, the "new" Adam, who conquered death, offering himself as a sacrifice on Calvary in loving obedience to the Father. In this way he redeemed us from the slavery of sin and evil. In the Virgin's triumph, the Church contemplates her whom the Father chose as the true Mother of his Only-begotten Son, closely associating her with the salvific plan of the Redemption.
Pope John Paul II was quite explicit about his support for the doctrine in his encyclical of 25 March 1987, Redemptoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer):
18. This blessing reaches its full meaning when Mary stands beneath the Cross of her Son (cf. Jn. 19:25). The Council says that this happened "not without a divine plan": by "suffering deeply with her only-begotten Son and joining herself with her maternal spirit to his sacrifice, lovingly consenting to the immolation of the victim to whom she had given birth," in this way Mary "faithfully preserved her union with her Son even to the Cross."[38] It is a union through faith--the same faith with which she had received the angel's revelation at the Annunciation. At that moment she had also heard the words: "He will be great...and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Lk. I :32-33)

And now, standing at the foot of the Cross, Mary is the witness, humanly speaking, of the complete negation of these words. On that wood of the Cross her Son hangs in agony as one condemned. "He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows...he was despised, and we esteemed him not": as one destroyed (cf. Is. 53:3-5). How great, how heroic then is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the face of God's "unsearchable judgments"! How completely she "abandons herself to God" without reserve, "offering the full assent of the intellect and the will"[39] to him whose "ways are inscrutable" (cf. Rom. 11:33)! And how powerful too is the action of grace in her soul, how all-pervading is the influence of the Holy Spirit and of his light and power!

Through this faith Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self-emptying. For "Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men": precisely on Golgotha "humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross" (cf. Phil. 2:5-8). At the foot of the Cross Mary shares through faith in the shocking mystery of this self-emptying. This is perhaps the deepest "kenosis" of faith in human history. Through faith the Mother shares in the death of her Son, in his redeeming death; but in contrast with the faith of the disciples who fled, hers was far more enlightened. On Golgotha, Jesus through the Cross definitively confirmed that he was the "sign of contradiction" foretold by Simeon. At the same time, there were also fulfilled on Golgotha the words which Simeon had addressed to Mary: "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also."[40] . . .

38. The Church knows and teaches with Saint Paul that there is only one mediator: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6). "The maternal role of Mary towards people in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power":[94] it is mediation in Christ.

The Church knows and teaches that "all the saving influences of the Blessed Virgin on mankind originate...from the divine pleasure. They flow forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rest on his mediation, depend entirely on it, and draw all their power from it. In no way do they impede the immediate union of the faithful with Christ. Rather, they foster this union."[95] This saving influence is sustained by the Holy Spirit, who, just as he overshadowed the Virgin Mary when he began in her the divine motherhood, in a similar way constantly sustains her solicitude for the brothers and sisters of her Son.

In effect, Mary's mediation is intimately linked with her motherhood. It possesses a specifically maternal character, which distinguishes it from the mediation of the other creatures who in various and always subordinate ways share in the one mediation of Christ, although her own mediation is also a shared mediation.[96] In fact, while it is true that "no creature could ever be classed with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer," at the same time "the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise among creatures to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this unique source." And thus "the one goodness of God is in reality communicated diversely to his creatures."[97]

The teaching of the Second Vatican Council presents the truth of Mary's mediation as "a sharing in the one unique source that is the mediation of Christ himself." Thus we read: "The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary. She experiences it continuously and commends it to the hearts of the faithful, so that, encouraged by this maternal help, they may more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer."[98] This role is at the same time special and extraordinary. It flows from her divine motherhood and can be understood and lived in faith only on the basis of the full truth of this motherhood. Since by virtue of divine election Mary is the earthly Mother of the Father's consubstantial Son and his "generous companion" in the work of redemption "she is a mother to us in the order of grace."[99] This role constitutes a real dimension of her presence in the saving mystery of Christ and the Church.

39. . . . Mary's motherhood, completely pervaded by her spousal attitude as the "handmaid of the Lord," constitutes the first and fundamental dimension of that mediation which the Church confesses and proclaims in her regard[100] and continually "commends to the hearts of the faithful," since the Church has great trust in her. For it must be recognized that before anyone else it was God himself, the Eternal Father, who entrusted himself to the Virgin of Nazareth, giving her his own Son in the mystery of the Incarnation. Her election to the supreme office and dignity of Mother of the Son of God refers, on the ontological level, to the very reality of the union of the two natures in the person of the Word (hypostatic union). This basic fact of being the Mother of the Son of God is from the very beginning a complete openness to the person of Christ, to his whole work, to his whole mission. The words "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord" testify to Mary's openness of spirit: she perfectly unites in herself the love proper to virginity and the love characteristic of motherhood, which are joined and, as it were, fused together.

For this reason Mary became not only the "nursing mother" of the Son of Man but also the "associate of unique nobility"[101] of the Messiah and Redeemer. As I have already said, she advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and in this pilgrimage to the foot of the Cross there was simultaneously accomplished her maternal cooperation with the Savior's whole mission through her actions and sufferings. Along the path of this collaboration with the work of her Son, the Redeemer, Mary's motherhood itself underwent a singular transformation, becoming ever more imbued with "burning charity" towards all those to whom Christ's mission was directed. Through this "burning charity," which sought to achieve, in union with Christ, the restoration of "supernatural life to souls,"[102] Mary entered, in a way all her own, into the one mediation "between God and men" which is the mediation of the man Christ Jesus. If she was the first to experience within herself the supernatural consequences of this one mediation in the Annunciation she had been greeted as "full of grace" then we must say that through this fullness of grace and supernatural life she was especially predisposed to cooperation with Christ, the one Mediator of human salvation. And such cooperation is precisely this mediation subordinated to the mediation of Christ.

In Mary's case we have a special and exceptional mediation, based upon her "fullness of grace," which was expressed in the complete willingness of the "handmaid of the Lord." In response to this interior willingness of his Mother, Jesus Christ prepared her ever more completely to become for all people their "mother in the order of grace." This is indicated, at least indirectly, by certain details noted by the Synoptics (cf. Lk. 11 :28; 8:20-21 ; Mk. 3:32-35; Mt. 12:47-50) and still more so by the Gospel of John (cf. 2: 1-1 2; 1 9:25-27), which I have already mentioned. Particularly eloquent in this regard are the words spoken by Jesus on the Cross to Mary and John.

40. After the events of the Resurrection and Ascension, Mary entered the Upper Room together with the Apostles to await Pentecost, and was present there as the Mother of the glorified Lord. She was not only the one who "advanced in her pilgrimage of faith" and loyally persevered in her union with her Son "unto the Cross," but she was also the "handmaid of the Lord," left by her Son as Mother in the midst of the infant Church: "Behold your mother." Thus there began to develop a special bond between this Mother and the Church. For the infant Church was the fruit of the Cross and Resurrection of her Son. Mary, who from the beginning had given herself without reserve to the person and work of her Son, could not but pour out upon the Church, from the very beginning, her maternal self-giving. After her Son's departure, her motherhood remains in the Church as maternal mediation: interceding for all her children, the Mother cooperates in the saving work of her Son, the Redeemer of the world. In fact the Council teaches that the "motherhood of Mary in the order of grace...will last without interruption until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect."[103] With the redeeming death of her Son, the maternal mediation of the handmaid of the Lord took on a universal dimension, for the work of redemption embraces the whole of humanity. Thus there is manifested in a singular way the efficacy of the one and universal mediation of Christ "between God and men." Mary's cooperation shares, in its subordinate character, in the universality of the mediation of the Redeemer, the one Mediator. This is clearly indicated by the Council in the words quoted above.

"For," the text goes on, "taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation."[104] With this character of "intercession," first manifested at Cana in Galilee, Mary's mediation continues in the history of the Church and the world. We read that Mary "by her maternal charity, cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led to their happy homeland."[105] In this way Mary's motherhood continues unceasingly in the Church as the mediation which intercedes, and the Church expresses her faith in this truth by invoking Mary "under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix."[106]

41. Through her mediation, subordinate to that of the Redeemer, Mary contributes in a special way to the union of the pilgrim Church on earth with the eschatological and heavenly reality of the Communion of Saints, since she has already been "assumed into heaven."[107] The truth of the Assumption, defined by Pius XII, is reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which thus expresses the Church's faith: "Preserved free from all guilt of original sin, the Immaculate Virgin was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory upon the completion of her earthly sojourn. She was exalted by the Lord as Queen of the Universe, in order that she might be the more thoroughly conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Rev. 19:16) and the conqueror of sin and death."[108] In this teaching Pius XII was in continuity with Tradition, which has found many different expressions in the history of the Church, both in the East and in the West.
Furthermore, Pope John Paul II has used the term Coredemptrix on at least five occasions in the course of his papal teachings (see extensive documentation on this):

In his greetings to the sick after the general audience of 8 September 1982:
Mary, though conceived and born without the taint of sin, participated in a marvelous way in the sufferings of her divine Son, in order to be Coredemptrix of humanity.
In his 4 November 1984 Angelus address in Arona:
To Our Lady—the Coredemptrix—St. Charles turned with singularly revealing accents.
31 January 1985: address at the Marian shrine in Guayaquil, Ecuador:
Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the ‘yes’ of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. There also, accepting and assisting at the sacrifice of her son, Mary is the dawn of Redemption;...Crucified spiritually with her crucified son (cf. Gal. 2:20), she contemplated with heroic love the death of her God, she “lovingly consented to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth” (Lumen Gentium, 58)...

In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ ‘to gather into one all the dispersed children of God’ (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity....In fact, Mary's role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.
31 March 1985: Palm Sunday and World Youth Day:
At the Angelus hour on this Palm Sunday, which the Liturgy calls also the Sunday of the Lord's Passion, our thoughts run to Mary, immersed in the mystery of an immeasurable sorrow. Mary accompanied her divine Son in the most discreet concealment pondering everything in the depths of her heart. On Calvary, at the foot of the Cross, in the vastness and in the depth of her maternal sacrifice, she had John, the youngest Apostle, beside her....May, Mary our Protectress, the Coredemptrix, to whom we offer our prayer with great outpouring, make our desire generously correspond to the desire of the Redeemer.
Commemoration of the sixth centenary of the canonization of St. Bridget of Sweden on 6 October 1991:
Birgitta looked to Mary as her model and support in the various moments of her life. She spoke energetically about the divine privilege of Mary's Immaculate Conception. She contemplated her astonishing mission as Mother of the Saviour. She invoked her as the Immaculate Conception, Our Lady of Sorrows, and Coredemptrix, exalting Mary's singular role in the history of salvation and the life of the Christian people.
Pope Benedict XVI teaches the same doctrine. For example, he stated on 2 February 2006:
Bringing her Son to Jerusalem, the Virgin Mother offered him to God as a true Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. She held him out to Simeon and Anna as the proclamation of redemption; she presented him to all as a light for a safe journey on the path of truth and love.
The following remark from our Holy Father was from his homily at the canonization Mass of Fr. Antônio de Sant’Ana Galvão, O.F.M., in Brazil, on 11 May 2007:
5. "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," says the Lord in the Gospel (Mt 11:28). This is the final recommendation that he makes to us. How can we fail to recognize here God’s fatherly and at the same time motherly care towards all his children? Mary, Mother of God and our Mother, stands particularly close to us at this moment. Frei Galvão prophetically affirmed the truth of the Immaculate Conception. She, the Tota Pulchra, the Virgin Most Pure, who conceived in her womb the Redeemer of mankind and was preserved from all stain of original sin, wishes to be the definitive seal of our encounter with God our Savior. There is no fruit of grace in the history of salvation that does not have as its necessary instrument the mediation of Our Lady.
Pope Benedict XVI, however, thinks it is unwise to use (let alone dogmatically define) the term Coredemptrix. In 2000, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated:
I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand [to define Mary as Coredemptrix], which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula 'Co-redemptrix' departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being 'with' is realized in her in exemplary fashion.

But this 'with' must not lead us to forget the 'first' of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

The word 'Co-redemptrix,' would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.

(God and the World: A Conversation With Peter Seewald, translated by Henry Taylor, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002 [from discussions in 2000], p. 306)

Note (it is absolutely crucial to understand this distinction) that he is not disagreeing with the doctrine itself ("what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary") but with this particular way of describing it.

There is also, in addition to the terminological and ecumenical issues, the matter of the right time to define something. John Paul II thought it wasn't yet the time for the dogmatic definition. The present pope appears to agree, and he also has more of a difficulty with terminology, if not the ideas intended by potentially misleading titles. I wholeheartedly agree with both of them about the doctrine, and I agree with the present Holy Father about the problematic nature of utilizing in such a definition the massively misunderstood term Coredemptrix.

My position is precisely the same: the doctrine itself is firmly rooted in Catholic tradition, and there is nothing unCatholic in believing these things (nor unbiblical; rightly understood), but it is not yet time to define them as infallible at the very highest level (this stance is called by Catholics "inopportunism"). I have defended the doctrine at great length and provide much relevant biblical data in my papers (for those of you whose jaws are dropping in shock at such language and notions!).

Lastly, though I think Coredemptrix is vastly misunderstood, and thus unwise to use (at least not without proximate elaborate explanations), as an apologist it is my task and duty to explain and defend the proper meaning of a word that has been used by many popes, including Pope John Paul II. My task is to defend first and foremost the doctrine meant by it, and secondly, to explain exactly what is intended by it, so as to disabuse folks who are either misinformed, or who wish (on a polemical level) to cynically use and abuse the term as a propagandistic club, in their efforts to distort what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and to foolishly detest a straw man. Mediatrix is misunderstood quite enough, as it is.

As a generality, however, those non-Catholic Christians who have pondered Mariology very little at all, and who have a dim understanding of the rich history of Christian thought on Mary, and biblical and traditional rationales for same, are exceedingly unlikely to comprehend the mediation and intercession of Mary. One can't grasp trigonometry or calculus without the prerequisite preparation in arithmetic and algebra and geometry. Likewise, many Christians haven't even gotten to first base in understanding biblical and patristic Mariology, let alone highly developed Catholic Mariology, in the year 2008. Hence, it is almost certain that a word like Coredemptrix would be as incomprehensible to them as transubstantiation or supralapsarianism would be to a two-year-old.

See also related resources:

Mary Was United to Jesus on the Cross (General Audience of Pope John Paul II: 25 October 1995)

Mary Freely Cooperated in God's Plan (Pope John Paul II: General Audience, 3 July 1996)

Mary has a Role in Jesus' Saving Mission (Pope John Paul II: General Audience, 18 December 1996)

Mary has universal spiritual motherhood (Pope John Paul II: General Audience, 24 September 1997)

Mary's mediation derives from Christ's (Pope John Paul II: General Audience, 1 October 1997)

Maternal Mediation, John Paul II, and Vatican II; A Response to a Statement of an International Theological Commission, Dr. Mark Miravalle (+ html version)

Pope John Paul II's Ordinary Magisterium on Marian Coredemption: Consistent Teaching and More Recent Perspectives, Msgr Arthur Calkins

She Gave the Word Flesh, Scott Hahn

Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici

Proposed Last (5th) Marian Dogma: Papers and Links

Catholic Pages Directory: Links on the 5th Marian Dogma

My papers:

A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an "Unbiblical" Notion After All?

Does Mary's Role as Mediatrix Contradict Jesus Christ as the Sole Mediator? / Response to a Catholic Critic

Dialogue on the Biblical Analogies to the Concept of Mary Mediatrix (Dave Armstrong vs. Robert Bowman)

Short Dialogue on Mary Mediatrix

An Explanation and Defense of the Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Mary Mediatrix

Mary as Mediatrix: Dialogues and Explanations

Mary as Mediatrix: The Patristic, Medieval, and Early Orthodox Evidence

Reflections on the Perpetual Virginity, Spiritual Motherhood and Mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Liturgical Abuses at Mass: How Much Should We Endure and What Should We Do About It? (w/ David W. Emery)




This is from a thread on the CHN board. David W. Emery has been a moderator there for some time. His words (edited slightly for general presentation) will be in blue.

* * *

Can. 846 ß1 The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those book

Church authorities have repeatedly been very specific and very clear that “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 1.3.22.3). One of the more recent pronouncements, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on April 23, 2004, contains this provision: “59. The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease.” Where the rubrics give specific permission, and only in those places, the priest may improvise.

The priest or deacon is never permitted to change the wording of the scriptural readings; they must be proclaimed verbatim according to the official text. Likewise, the priest has no authority to omit words from the Mass or the readings without a rubric specifically allowing him to do so. The rubric merely assigns the text to the priest; it does not give him permission to change it.

Is it all that important that the official text be followed? The Vatican has repeatedly said that it is. However, this does not make you or me the policeman to ensure that this happens. I must admit that I too am dismayed and saddened by blatant priestly disobedience to the Church’s authorities in this matter. But I do not see how my being annoyed gives me any authority to take matters into my own hands, so I ignore the infraction as best I can and pray for the salvation of all present in spite of our failings. If there is anything I can change, it is my own attitude and behavior.

[The valid Eucharist] is the primary reason I have recommended that we ignore minor infractions, whether by the priest or by others. Instead of passing judgment and holding grudges, we need to concentrate on forgiveness, as our own salvation depends on this: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

The Church has dealt with such abuses, in Redemptionis Sacramentum, On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004; Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect):
[51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.

[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”, except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See.”

59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.
It seems simple enough that a priest ought to be up to speed as to what he is permitted to do and not do, with the liturgy. How difficult is that? A night or two curled up on a couch with the appropriate documents would seem to be sufficient. Because it is seemingly not difficult to determine the rules and rubrics (we are doing it ourselves here in this thread), one can only conclude that priests who do not either are lax in the matter or being deliberately disobedient and seeing how much they can get away with.

My solution? I wish I were as pious as David Emery, and of course it is always great to pray in any situation, but one way (as a last resort. mind you) that will accomplish this goal is to speak with your feet: find another parish that does honor the instructions of the magisterium. People leaving cause income of the parish to go down. Money speaks. It's sad that it has to be that way, but whatever works . . .

We as laypeople have a perfect right to experience the Mass the way it is intended to be conducted. As long as we don't fall into a "church-hopping" mentality, we can choose to (after having exhausted all other avenues) leave a parish if there are serious problems that do not seem to ever be rectified.

I want to make it very clear that one should choose to leave a parish in the event of truly serious, ongoing abuses, not just a few incorrect words here and there. The Eucharist is what it is, of course, but that's not at issue, which is the right of Catholics to participate in Mass the way it is intended to be by the Church.

It's precisely because every individual Catholic has an authority higher than the parish priest (the bishop and the pope and the magisterium of the Church), that sometimes he or she can "vote with their feet" and be perfectly within their "rights" as a Catholic to do so (and not merely an individualist, as so often in Protestantism). The problem lies with the priest or other "liturgy abusers" at their parish, not with them.

But I fully agree that this is a final recourse, not the first thing to impulsively do. Speaking for myself, I haven't personally criticized a priest in my parish a single time for anything, in my 17+ years as a Catholic. But of course I am spoiled a bit at my parish because everything is conducted so wonderfully there.

I’ve also done that [leave a parish] on several occasions. But from what I’ve seen, money is a non-issue with those who deliberately change texts. You will notice the same with any agenda-driven act. However, not every deviation is agenda-driven. More recently, I’ve chosen the other path because I see that my own attitude, not the priest’s, is what will save me.

That may very well be (I'll accept your word on that), but on the other hand, their bishop will be concerned if the parish isn't generating enough income and that will still land on the priest's head, so he will still ultimately be affected by loss of parishioners.

Your point of proper respect for the priest and concern over our possible objectionable attitudes in such situations is perfectly valid and needed, but it's really a separate issue from the original concern of this post, which was liturgical purity and correctness according to the rubrics.

That’s why I answered the other point first. But as I said above, the prudential issue is really the main question here, not the occurrence of violations, because a question of fact is easily answered, while a question of judgment is not.

The fact remains that there are rubrics and instructions, and these are sufficiently clear. If we point out an abuse to a priest (backed with authoritative Church documents), with perfect humility and graciousness (maybe over dinner or in the midst of twenty compliments, etc., and without the slightest hint of an unsavory "judgmental" or superior attitude) and he simply refuses to make the needed changes, then whether or not his error was inadvertent before, it is now deliberately opposed to Church instruction, since he has been informed of his error.

And what does one do in that situation, if the priest persists in the error? Watch your attitude; pray; absolutely! That's a given. But in the final analysis, like I said, the layman has the right as a Catholic, to the Mass as it ought to be (just as the increasing yearning for the Tridentine Mass as a live option in Catholic worship has arguably played a big role in the present greater availability of that Mass).

Again, I agree with you about attitudes and priorities, and not entering into unwise battles over relatively small abuses (though they be real and troubling). But there comes a point when one can leave in good conscience, having tried other means with no success.

I don’t think we are in disagreement here. We are not all that far apart in our understanding; the seeming disparity is just looking at the problem from different angles.

Bu
t as a matter of conscience, I wouldn’t seek to destroy a parish by boycotting a priest; that is neither the proper motive nor the proper goal. And I think you would agree with such a caveat. We need to build up, not tear down the Body of Christ.

We all have our own experiences. I haven't (thank God) been subject to all these abuses and doctrinal absurdities (including RCIA horror stories), that I hear about distressingly often here, and from other Catholics elsewhere. Consequently, I've been at my parish the entire time since I was received into the Church (in February 1991), and have not had a single situation where I felt compelled to ever "correct" my parish priest.

I would say in summary that a priest has a responsibility to make sure the liturgy is done properly and correctly. This is central to his task as a priest (along with dispensing sacraments, administration, prayer, visitation, etc.). He is no more immune from doing his job properly than anyone is, whether it is making sure to teach proper Catholic doctrine (as in my situation as an apologist and now moderator of the CHN discussion board) or balancing the books properly if one is an accountant or following the standard procedures of doctors and nurses, or constructing a road or a building the right way, or preparing a good meal at a restaurant. Whatever it is, a worker in his field has the responsibility to do it right. All the more in the case of the Catholic liturgy, because of its supreme importance.

Many priests may simply be unaware that they are doing anything wrong. I grant that, and am happy this is the reason rather than disobedience. But once they are made aware that they ought not do something and continue to do so, then there is a serious problem in their attitude, not necessarily in the super-seriousness of a word here or there being botched.

I respect no people on earth more than I do priests and religious. I'm in awe of them. But they are not immune from criticism, when they do things wrong, and come to know without a doubt that they are wrong, yet continue to do it.

* * *
I do not see how my being annoyed gives me any authority to take matters into my own hands, . . .
Why cannot a concerned layman point out that the rubrics of the Mass have been violated? Does not every layman have the right to appeal to a bishop, in the case of a straying priest?

Legally and theoretically your points are valid. But practically speaking the issue is more complicated, because other people are involved, because one’s personal judgment is involved, and because motives will be questioned any time there is a complaint. It would have to be a serious, obvious, ongoing violation endangering the actual validity or security of the Eucharist to avoid rejection.

Here’s what I mean: All complaints about the liturgy are, in a sense, considered grave accusations, and there is bound to be an initial negative reaction: Is this on the level? Are you an ideologue? Is there some personal dispute between you and Father that is the real root of your complaint? Are you perhaps trying to lash out at the Church because of something that was said or done that you thought was aimed at you? In a certain sense all these questions are legitimate. Church authorities want to be certain that there is a sound basis for the complaint before proceeding.

But of course it makes the complaintant into a sort of monster, and the process can be rather rough on him. The complaintant is put on the defensive from the very beginning. This is the last thing we want to see, but one way or another, it invariably happens. In spite of the supposed right of the faithful to complain, even to the highest offices of the Vatican, about abuses, this inevitable “hot seat” for the complaintant can be very discouraging. So the choice as to whether one should bring liturgical abuses to the attention of the bishop (or failing his positive response, to Rome) will always involve to a certain extent the stomach one has for being cross-examined, because it is a necessary step in the process of discovering whether the accusation is true and, on the practical level, warrants a response.


This is how the Catholic Church hierarchy works. The priest is subject to the bishop, and so a layman can appeal to a bishop for recourse against priestly abuses of the liturgy, just as we can sometimes go over the head of our supervisors at work, to the "big boss" (or higher up the ranks in the military, in serious situations).

That is not taking matters "into my own hands." Laymen are not deprived of all say-so whatsoever in the Church, as if we are dumb sheep. That's not even true in doctrinal matters, where there is such a thing as the "consent of the faithful" (sensus fidelium) that Cardinal Newman has eloquently written about. It's how the Catholic Church works. And we can also appeal to the pope in the case of erring bishops.

Let it be rare, well thought through and considered, done with the right attitude, soaked in prayer; amen! But I don't see how it is intrinsically improper to take such measures, failing gentler ones. I think this is a sort of assumed premise or "sub-discussion" that is occurring in this thread alongside the original topic of the objectionable liturgical messing-around of some priests.

The prudential issue, as I see it, was the original question. I took this to be the meaning of “making a mountain out of a molehill: Should a person see these acts as serious enough to require censure? And if so, what should he do about it?

My answer was that the Vatican evidently does see them as serious violations because of the strong language it uses when calling for remedial action: “The reprobated practice… must cease,” etc. On the other hand, it is difficult to enforce because a case of this kind nearly always degenerates into a clash of personalities.

I reiterate: it is not “intrinsically improper to take such measures” as registering a complaint. But I also believe that, when it is proper to complain, it should be done with great care and circumspection, because as I said above, the complaintant’s motives will undoubtedly be questioned.

* * *

Vatican II highly stressed active liturgical participation of all at Mass. It occurred to me that this is another very relevant factor in laymen speaking up about liturgical abuse. This means that, to the extent that abuses occur, now we are also forced to participate (in one sense) in the same error. And that is simply unacceptable. It doesn't have to be, and there are things we can do about it.

If talking charitably, kindly, but firmly to our priests and bishops does not change this, then we should go to a parish where it is done right, and if enough people together decide to do that, then perhaps some necessary changes will be made.

This is being a conscientious Catholic and seeking to worship at Mass the way that the magisterium wants it to be, not trying to simply go our own way, as if there was anything wrong with it.

I again offer the analogy of the availability of the Tridentine Mass. If the faithful kept expressing that they wanted that option (and often due to the shabby, shoddy nature of how so many Novus Ordo Masses are done today), and that helped to cause two popes to increasingly abide by their wishes, then surely we can also complain about liturgical abuses and try to rectify that situation as well. The last two popes have often written about such things, so it is perfectly proper for laypeople to follow their lead, as long as we do it with the proper respect and humility for those who have authority over us in the Church.

* * *

You're being more practical and prudential, and I am talking more about the "rights" of laymen, and being idealistic, as is my wont (and often, cross!). I think what you are saying is very important and ought to be "aired." It's a relevant aspect that should be considered as well: how folks are likely to react to any such actions on our part, and it is a needed input on an important widespread problem.

I hit this point heavily because it’s what actually happens. I’ve seen it repeatedly. Either the bishop thinks he has one of those overzealous ultra-traditionalists hounding him and his confreres, or the priest accuses the complaintant of making a personal attack over some private dispute on another matter, or some similar thing is brought up. This seems always to be the pattern, no matter how careful the complaintant is to respect feelings and impressions as well as the truth.

But does that not support exactly what I was saying: that such absurd, prejudicial reactions to such protests from priests and bishops, where they occur, are indicative of a problem in these priests and bishops in the first place? . They seem too often to be beset by a certain paranoia or abject fear of an intelligent, faithful, articulate layman pointing out to them (based on clear Church guidelines) that they have done anything wrong. It's as if they see themselves as immune from all criticism. This is "sacerdotalism" at its worst, and (somewhat ironically) approaches the mentality of Protestant pastors, who are also often unapproachable (as I know from sad personal experience).

Surely there are nuts and overly self-important zealots among the laymen who go about such a things wrongly and with a self-righteous, condemnatory attitude. But that doesn't mean there are no legitimate complaints or none that should be made. We shouldn't cease saying what needs to be said because some of our clergy act improperly when someone dares to correct them, in charity and with humility and reverence for their office. The reaction ought not totally determine what we do.

I can agree to the extent that such men exist. However, the point I was making about the complaintant’s motives being challenged is not fully explained by these types. It is rather a legitimate cross-examination to protect the integrity of the Church against possible cranks or saboteurs.

And so I would contend that -- precisely because of these manifested ridiculous attitudes (where they occur) --, sometimes (as a last resort only) we are forced to vote with our feet. We have a right to the Mass as intended by the Church. If we allow ourselves to be subjected to nonsense, as a result of a man who is not following Church guidelines, we are subject to the whims of mere men.

Man, I'm so glad I'm in a parish where this stuff doesn't happen! I don't have the patience for it. The way I deal with liberalism and nonsense in the Church is to 1) ignore it on a personal level, and 2) denounce it in my writings. But I have the luxury of being in a great parish, that (sadly) not many have.

One CHN board member was asking about how to identify a good parish:

Today, it is fairly easy to find a good parish, almost by a default method. If it doesn't present a goofy, trendy version of the liturgy, and gets it right, that is the first big clue. Follow the missal, to verify that. And if it offers all these sorts of things that you mention, that is the other big clue.

Devotion to the Blessed Virgin and obedience to the Holy Father are two other clear indications that you are in a solid, orthodox parish. Look at any books that are offered. If you see good orthodox publishers like Ignatius, OSV, and Sophia, and promotion of EWTN and Catholic radio, then you're probably in a good parish.

It is simply a matter of learning a few telltale signs, so you can avoid nonsense before ever getting committed to a particular parish. The goal is to find a good parish, not the church-hopping mentality. Once you find one, stay there, and be very committed to it, and don't ever plan on leaving for less than extremely serious or necessary reasons. I've been at mine for over 17 years.

In any relatively large metro area, you should be able to find a very good, orthodox parish (mine is right outside of downtown Detroit, near the baseball and football stadiums). In rural areas, however, one doesn't have much of a choice, usually, and it can be a cross to bear, enduring mediocrity, spiritual pablum in homilies, and departures from the rubrics. But you still have Jesus present in the Eucharist, unless it is an outright invalid Mass (which is rare). Keep your focus on that (i.e., Him).

Resources for the Biblical Teaching on Wine and Alcohol



[ source ]

There is no question about it, that the Bible refers to real wine (and sanctions its use in proper moderation). The main reason it was questioned in American society was because of the anti-alcohol temperance movement in the 19th century. That was the time when the Presbyterians and Methodists went to grape juice for the Eucharist. They caved to political and cultural pressure and went against what the Bible taught.

Remember, too, this was a time before refrigeration and water filtration systems, and it was difficult to get drinks that were not contaminated. Having mildly alcoholic beverages took care of that problem.

Here is some helpful information along these lines:

"A Little Whine," J.P. Holding

"Alcohol and the Bible," Daniel Whitfield

"Does the Bible Forbid Drinking any Wine or Alcohol?", Norman F. Rowe

"Wine," Easton's Bible Dictionary

"Wine," Smith's Bible Dictionary

"The Bible and Alcohol," Daniel B. Wallace

"Wine; Wine Press," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"Does Scripture Permit Us to Drink Alcoholic Beverages?," Kenneth Gentry

"Alcohol and the Bible," David J. Hanson

"Alcohol: Biblical and Catholic Teaching," Dave Armstrong

Monday, February 18, 2008

Open Forum

Link to previous one. This forum is designed to accommodate all discussion not related to existing posts.

Catholic (and Protestant) Biblical Illiteracy and Ignorance at an All-Time High?



This ain't just me speculating on or lamenting this, based on mere subjective experience; it is verified by many scientific polls of the beliefs of professed Catholics:
1) Gallup (2005).

2) Gallup (1993).

3) Barna Group (2007).

4) Barna Group (2001).

5) Zogby (2001).
No need for me to give any of the many horrific details. Anyone who is interested can scope out one or more of these surveys and see for themselves.

But it is consistently notable that evangelical Protestants score higher in many aspects that orthodox Catholics and more traditional Protestants hold in common, than Catholics do. This is one reason converts have had a measure of influence, because they often enter the Church having more Catholic views than many Catholics.

In my own case, for example, the first thing I changed my mind on as a Protestant was contraception. So, as a Protestant, I came to agree with Catholic teaching, whereas according to one of the polls I cited, 61% of Catholics do not think contraception is immoral and a grave, intrinsically evil sin (as the Church teaches). And that is but one example of many doctrines where many evangelical Protestants have a more Catholic view than a great many Catholics.

Knowledge of the Bible is not only scandalously low among Catholics, but also (surprisingly) among evangelical Protestants too (though they know a lot more than your average Catholic). Again, polls bear this out:
1) "Five Decades of Decline".

2) "Worshiping in Ignorance," Stephen Prothero.

3) "Another Gospel".
Examples:

When given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers firmly embraced all thirteen as being biblical perspectives.
  • One-third could not put the following in order: Abraham, the Old Testament prophets, the death of Christ, and Pentecost.
  • Half could not sequence the following: Moses in Egypt, Isaac’s birth, Saul’s death, and Judah’s exile.
  • One-third could not identify Matthew as an apostle from a list of New Testament names.

    [the above three results were taken from surveys of incoming freshmen at Wheaton College: supposedly a bastion of evangelical Protestantism]
4) Bible Literacy Report
5) "Religious Illiteracy: Ignorance a Growing Problem"
This was an article from the Catholic Zenit, that described an April 2007 poll in Ireland. Some results:

a) 52% of those of ages 15-24 could name the authors of the four Gospels.

b) 47% of the same age group could name the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

c) 38% knew there were seven sacraments (and just 63% of the over-65 age group knew this, too).
6) "Catholic Youth and the Bible," Brian Singer-Towns [Catholic article]:
"We have ample evidence that biblical literacy among Catholic youth today isn't much different from my experience of twenty-five years ago. Most Catholic teens cannot name the four Gospels. The explosion of interest in the Scriptures by adult Catholics since the Second Vatican Council has by and large not really reached Catholic youth. For example, in a recent Gallup study, only 20 percent of Catholic youth, compared to 60 percent of Christian youth from other denominations, claimed to have ever read the Bible on their own."
7) "The Problem of Biblical Illiteracy," Dr. Claude Mariottini [Baptist].

8) "6 in 10 Filipinos Don't Read, Own Bible".

9) "Are We Biblically Illiterate?", Jeffrey Overstreet.
Folks disagree on the extent of biblical illiteracy among Catholics, which is a factual matter. That's why I produced some polls suggesting that the problem of lack of knowledge of the Bible is widespread: not just among Catholics, but among Protestants as well.

It's something we should all be concerned about. But in any treatment of the current state of affairs, one needs to understand exactly the nature and extent of the problem. Scientifically-controlled polls are (it seems to me) pretty much the only way to determine that.

I think it is important that converts coming into the Church should know that there are many problems of people in the Church. They need to be fully aware of this beforehand, so they are not deeply disappointed once they come in (as I have seen happen, many times over my 17 years as a Catholic and close observer of the apologetics / convert "scene"; some of them became radical "traditionalists" in their extreme reactions to what they find).

I knew there was a huge crisis of modernism and dissent when I came into the Church. My mentor Fr. John Hardon used to often say that modernism was the greatest crisis in the history of the Church, and the culmination of all heresies, and that we were right in the midst of it. It didn't hinder or stop me at all, because modernism or religious liberalism has not succeeded in changing any Catholic doctrines. That's why we are fundamentally different from something like Anglicanism, where doctrines have actually been changed and compromised under the influence of disbelief and dissent from received doctrines.

I always urge potential converts to "take the long view" and look at the history and doctrine of the Church, not the people "on the ground." Conversion ought not to be based on observing people and seeing how "on-fire" they are (that's back to the man-centeredness of much of Protestantism), but on the teachings of the Church. They are what they are, regardless of how many Catholics accept them or not. A crisis of bad catechesis is not a crisis of dogmatic theology in the Church herself.

Bottom line: liberal theology and disbelief and selective belief and ignorance is a widespread problem afflicting just about all brands of Christianity. The Catholic difference is that this crisis has not been allowed to change any traditional dogma or doctrine of the Church. That's why I am a Catholic: because I want apostolic, traditional, biblical Christianity, passed down pure and undefiled, and unaffected by the whims and fads and fancies of any given age or culture.

On the "Celebrity" Status of Scott Hahn / Our Call to Effectively Share the Catholic Faith With Non-Catholics in Terms That They Can Understand



In a thread on the CHN board where I moderate, a new Catholic was complaining about how Catholics (especially new converts) view Dr. Scott Hahn. To her, they seem to be idolizing him or turning him into a super-hero, and she detests the fact that this looks to be a mirror image of what goes on so often in Protestantism. I had a number of things to say in reply.

* * * * *

I hear ya. Scott is certainly extremely influential in modern Catholic apologetics and American Catholic life, period. No question about it. Generally, if two names come up as key figures in the modern revival it is Scott and Karl Keating. And I think it is a fair assessment.

Is this a bad thing? Well, it could be. Like anything, it comes down to the person who is doing all the admiring and adulating. Just because they may put him too high on a pedestal doesn't necessarily reflect on Scott. He is just doing what he has been called and gifted to do, and God has made it fruitful. He himself is a very humble, gentle soul: one of the nicest people I have ever met. I don't think we can chalk this up to him.

What do we do about this? If Scott is put up too high and practically idolized by some (and the literal meaning of that is idolatry), what should he do? Disappear? I don't think he is doing anything bad! If God has blessed his efforts and everyone is talking about them and learning their faith more and becoming more confident Catholics, then praise God that apologetics and Bible study and the other theological issues he has written about are being exercised and appreciated more widely. I think we should be thankful, first and foremost.

So your husband says, "Catholics are no different than Protestants--just look at this." My reply to him would be, "why is it that you would assume that Catholics are any different in the first place?" We're fallen human beings with all the same faults that Protestants exhibit. If "hero worship" or what have you is a problem in Protestant circles, surely we will also see it in Catholic circles.

One might argue that some of this is more of an "American" thing. We're always going crazy over big heroes in music and TV and movies. Look at American Idol or the stupid magazines in checkout lines or even the Obama phenomenon right now . . . It seems to give meaning and purpose to people's lives.

The Catholic Church has many saints who ought to be our heroes, if anyone is. If we want to admire or emulate someone, let it be them, not a theology professor or apologist or radio or TV talk show host or a priest or nun in the Catholic world. Let the pope be a personal hero. He is worthy of that. Scott Hahn doesn't want to be a "hero". He wants to share the Catholic faith.

That said, I would, however, contend that Catholics are, overall, far less "man-centered" than Protestants. I've been in both camps. I know this to be a fact. Protestants have "civil wars" simply because a pastor leaves and another comes in. I personally witnessed this in three different congregations I was a part of (and I didn't participate in the slightest; I utterly despised it as the devil's diversion).

Why should a congregation be in crisis simply because one man left and another took up the pastor's role? Protestants have actually split over dumb things like the color of a carpet in church, or whether buttons indicate excessive luxury and self-preoccupation (Mennonites and Amish have actually had that dispute).

Catholics usually don't do this. Many times I have heard Catholics complain about their own priest but I don't see them considering leaving their parish. They stay (almost to a fault, I think, at times). They don't just leave because they don't like the priest's personality or his homilies, or the fact that he may not be an overly friendly or sociable type.

Protestants often do do that. So you'll hear things like, "I'm just not getting anything out of Pastor Doe's sermons. I'm gonna go somewhere where I'll be fed." Or, the famous, notorious, "I'm not getting enough fellowship here."

One might also argue, concerning Scott Hahn, that his very enthusiasm and knowledge and zeal was such a novelty when he first appeared some 20 years ago, that the very unusualness and oddity of it made him a widely admired figure. He stood out, because it was so different from what Catholics were used to. It's not like enthusiasm is the sole province of Protestants. Look at Fulton Sheen, for example.

But it had become rare, because Catholics had a crisis of confidence in the years after Vatican II. Scott comes along and he inspired confidence, and so people liked and admired him. They wish they were more like he is. He is inspiring; he makes them feel good about being a Catholic, and no longer ashamed or second-class. Is that such a bad thing? No; only if it becomes truly excessive and obsessive. A person can be admired and inspiring without being an idol. It can be a fine line, but there is a difference.

But if hundreds and thousands of Catholics had already been doing the sort of things that Scott does, and in the way he does it, then he wouldn't be such a novelty, would he? So one might argue that part of the excess you see is due to the extreme lack of others like Scott in the last forty years. We ened to look at ourselves and the overall situation, not at Scott.

We don't need less of Scott Hahn. We need 5000 or 10,000 or more "Scott Hahns" out there sharing with his zeal and enthusiasm and knowledge. Then the spotlight won't be so much on him, no? It's like Elvis or the Beatles or something (even Frank Sinatra in the 40s). They were so unique when they came onto the scene that everybody was going crazy over them. But then others came along that picked up where they left off, and they weren't quite so unique.

* * *

Vatican II urges Catholics to speak in terms that Protestants can understand (when talking to them):

We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained.

. . . The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

(Decree on Ecumenism, Chapter II, sections 9, 11; my emphasis)

67. This most Holy Synod deliberately teaches this Catholic doctrine and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and the practices and exercises of piety, recommended by the magisterium of the Church toward her in the course of centuries be made of great moment, and those decrees, which have been given in the early days regarding the cult of images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed.(22*) But it exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God.(23*) Following the study of Sacred Scripture, the Holy Fathers, the doctors and liturgy of the Church, and under the guidance of the Church's magisterium, let them rightly illustrate the duties and privileges of the Blessed Virgin which always look to Christ, the source of all truth, sanctity and piety. Let them assiduously keep away from whatever, either by word or deed, could lead separated brethren or any other into error regarding the true doctrine of the Church. Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity, but proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues.

(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church / Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII, IV, section 67; my emphasis)
This very much follows a biblical, Pauline theme as well:
1 Corinthians 9:19-23

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
So, let's be proud to be Catholics, and to talk and act like Catholics, not being ashamed at all. But let's also keep in mind that it is okay -- indeed, urged by St. Paul and the Church in the Second Vatican Council -- to speak in terms that our separated, highly esteemed Protestant brethren can understand and relate to. It doesn't mean we have to water down Catholic teaching or present "Catholic Lite"; it means simply that we express the Faith in terms that are more understandable. We try to speak "Protestantese."

Let's not be uncharitable to our Protestant brethren simply because we are excited about new Catholic truths and may be trying to distance ourselves from our past. Let's not forget, as converts, where we once were, and how sincere we were before; just misinformed and undereducated about Catholicism.

I don't think it is so much the case that someone like Scott Hahn can't get rid of his old habits of speech, and will always "talk Protestant." No. It is a conscious attempt on his part to speak in ways that Protestants can comprehend. That's one huge reason why he has been so successful as a vessel of God to help obtain more conversions to Catholicism.

Heaven forbid that we don't try to reach people in this fashion. If we truly are excited about the Catholic faith, and want to help bring more people into it, then we had better learn this, or we will fail in our task, or at least not do as well as we could do.

I thank God that two lifelong Catholic friends of mine took the urgings of Vatican II seriously and patiently shared the faith with me in ways that I could understand. If they hadn't done that, I may not have ever converted, or might have years later than I did. And these were not converts. They were cradle Catholics who were following the advice of the council; sharing their faith (just as Pat Madrid and Karl Keating are cradle Catholics who have understood and come to apply this approach).

I was then privileged to be able to study under the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. for months. He was as Catholic (and as holy) as they come. He was no convert, either. Yet when I wrote A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which is precisely intended to speak in a language that Protestants can relate to, by utilizing much biblical support, he wrote the Foreword. He once told me that my writings were "very Catholic." I consider this the greatest compliment on my apologetics that I have ever received.

I'm not trying to puff myself up, believe me. I"m trying to illustrate my point, using an example from my own life. Anti-Catholics like Steve Hays (that's his photo) do not understand this aspect at all, and so, in his confusion and distress over Scott Hahn's success in persuading people, he writes ridiculous, outrageously false accusations like the following (and I was honored to be thrown into the mix with Scott, too):
There are Catholic laymen who, because they're involved in group Bible studies with their Evangelical friends and coworkers, end up with a personal theology that is more Evangelical than their church.

3.Apropos (2), many Evangelical immigrants to Rome bring along a certain amount of contraband theology stashed away in their luggage.

As I've observed in the past, they are often far more conservative than cradle Catholics or the clergy. Indeed, they're often at odds with their adopted denomination.

So guys like Dave Armstrong and Scott Hahn present an artificially Evangelicalized version of Roman Catholicism.

Consider Hahn's use of covenant theology to defend and explicate Catholic dogma. This is clearly a carryover from his Presbyterian past.

He's grafting elements of one theological system onto elements of an opposing theological system.

So they end up with a sterile hybrid theology that isn't consistently Catholic or Protestant.

4.The reason that an apologist like Hahn is successful in bringing Evangelical fence-straddlers over to the Rome fold is precisely the because he has erected an Evangelicaloid bridge between the two traditions.

When Evangelicals read about his version of Catholicism, it looks uncannily familiar. A family resemblance. They've seen it before. The shock of recognition. A long lost son. Twins separated at birth. This is what we always believed!

5.When they present Catholicism, the outside surface of the door has a heavy coat of Evangelical paint, while the inside surface of the door has a Catholic coat of paint.

Kind of like the Gingerbread house in Hansel and Gretel - with Evangelical icing, sprinkles, gum drops, M&Ms, marshmallows, and candy canes on the outside, along with a yummy aroma from the chimney.

[from one of my papers, documenting and responding to Hays' claims]
Steve doesn't get it. And he doesn't because he assumes, in his anti-Catholic outlook, that the differences between Christians are much greater than they actually are (in fact, for him, we are not Christians at all, so there you go). He assumes that Scott Hahn and myself must be fudging the facts and trying to present a faith neither Catholic nor Protestant. This is his "argument." This is how desperate and out to sea some of our opponents are. But it is not so. We're merely presenting the Faith in terms that can be understood better by non-Catholics. He has never succeeded in proving a single instance where anything I wrote, or that Scott wrote, has contradicted official Catholic theology (nor has anyone else, in my case).

In another screed, Hays viciously attacked Scott, as essentially a liar and deceiver (and I defended him in my reply):
If there’s one word to summarize his method, it’s “equivocation.”

. . . Hahn has no excuse to mislead the reader this way.

. . . Hahn’s simplistic misrepresentation.

As a one-time evangelical himself, Hahn must know this, but he prefers to deceive the reader.

This is quite deceptive, for none of these local councils or synods qualify as ecumenical councils. Another one of Hahn’s studied equivocations.

A reader who relied on Hahn for his knowledge of Catholicism would have no idea what a skewed picture he’s getting. Hahn poses as a representative of Catholic dogma, but his exegetical argumentation is hardly representative of mainstream Catholicism.
Even in this pseudo-analysis, Hays is self-contradictory, because he faults Scott for supposedly mindlessly aping Catholic dogma, yet on the other hand he accuses him of misrepresenting same. Which is it? Or is it just that anything goes, no matter how ridiculous or incoherent and illogical, when an anti-Catholic criticizes a Catholic and Catholicism?

I've been falsely accused of utilizing sola Scriptura as a method to refute Protestant notions, simply because I cited a lot of Bible verses.

So there is a balance here, as always. We can remain thoroughly orthodox in our theology and practices, but vary in how we present and defend our beliefs to others, so that we will more effectively communicate glorious Catholic truths. Scott is doing this. We ought to admire him for it, and do more of what he does, ourselves, in order to be more so the sort of Catholics that our Church in an Ecumenical Council ratified by a pope, would desire us to be.

Radio Interview: 15 February 2008 / The Extreme Honor of Having Bishop White "Reply" For 45 Minutes!!! / Is James White an "Intellectual Coward"?

The interview was on Spirit Morning Show, with Bruce and Kris McGregor (Spirit Catholic Radio, from Omaha), and was devoted to my book, The One-Minute Apologist:

"Catholic Radio for the Christian community"

88.9FM - Omaha 103.1FM - Schuyler 98.3FM - Norfolk

The image “http://70998.netministry.com/images/BruceandKris1%2Ejpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I gave a very brief account of my conversion story and discussed the parts of the book having to do with salvation. The interview is archived and can be listened to by anyone for free. More interviews about the book are planned as well, on the same station.

* * * * *

Be sure to catch Bishop James White's mocking, ridiculous "commentary" on this very interview, on his Dividing Line webcast (2-19-08). It's quite entertaining. I'll give White that much. He even features (Rush Limbaugh-like) a portion of a Three Dog Night song. Guess which one?! Oh, and then (filled with ingenious satirical ideas) White plays a Billy Joel song that starts with "h". Just think of an accusation that anti-Catholics almost always make against Catholics (that I do not reciprocate). Whew . . . The good bishop ended his "rebuttal" with a flourish:
I'm certain that I will see, within the next two days, a long blog article about how terrible and horrible and everything else that I am . . .
Sorry to disappoint you, Your Eminence, and to wreck your prophetic prowess, but I just ain't interested anymore in dealing with fools and intellectual cowards who consistently refuse to defend their positions when challenged in writing again and again. This is strictly humorous stuff, no more, and so I am glad to post it for my readers to listen to if they're in the mood for a good laugh. We all need comic diversion now and then.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

2008 Don Rickles Chronic Insulter of the Year Award Goes to Bishop White


[ source for Bishop White photos ]

Bishop James White has received the prestigious Don Rickles Award for chronic insulting, based in large part upon his compelling performance on his Insulting Line webcast of 2-19-08 (see my commentary on that and the ensuing group discussion).

In honor of this extraordinary occasion, legendary singer-songwriter Bob Dylan was commissioned to write a new song specifically intended for the good bishop (see the first draft). Here it is:

Positively Sophist Streak Revisited

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a Ph.D.
When challenged to live chat
You just stand there spinning.

You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a thinker's brain to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning.

You say I turned you down
You know it's not like that
If you're so smart
Why then don't you prove it?

You say we lost our faith
But that's not where it's at
"Romanists" have no faith to lose
And you know it.

I know the reason
That you write behind my back
I've long observed the crowd
That you're in with.

Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd do an "oral debate"
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with?

You see me on the Net
You act like an arrogant idiot
You say, "I crush every DA argument"
But you won't do it.

When you know (like with your sis')
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Why don't you just come out once
And scream it?

No, I do not restrain my pity
When I see the cowardice you embrace
If I was your sycophant
Perhaps I'd mimic.

I know how much you're satisfied
With your position and your place
Don't you understand
I ain't in your fan club?

I wish that for just one time
You'd allow comments on your blog
And just for that one moment
You could dialogue.

Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside our shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To read you.



Farewell, good bishop. You've had your fun with your warmed-over, not particularly funny (by any standard of humor), half-baked "Rush wannabe" winking, chuckling "radio commentary" -- including satirical song titles. I've had my fun with song lyrics too. Two can play at the game of satire. I've been writing satire for over 25 years.

Now (to be more serious [true satire always has a significant serious element] ), how about you finally follow and apply, once and for all, your own resolution of seven years ago (12 January 2001)? I'd be more than happy -- in fact, utterly delighted --to comply along with you!:
1) You first wrote to me years ago. I did not go after YOU.

2) YOU started the complaining and ad-hominem right off the bat.

3) I showed I was not interested in such behavior by refusing to play your game. You have had to call the exchange of a couple of letters a "debate" ever since then.

4) I have done all I could since then in light of certain aspects of your behavior to avoid interaction like the plague.

5) My website contains nothing about you for that very reason. You are a writer who seemingly has endless vistas of time in which to write endlessly irrelevant diatribes that, if they are not dissected point by point, you claim are, in fact, "tightly reasoned" classics of Socratic logic and insightful patristic and biblical scholarship. And if someone does point out obvious errors, well, poof! Mean-spirited angry Protestants!

It's a no-win situation, and I am still kicking myself for even thinking about hitting the "reply" button on the first e-mail from you regarding that dialogue. I should have told TGE [Tim Enloe] to let you know you all could dialogue in lots and lots and lots of places other than #prosapologian. But we all have moments of weakness, I guess. So I apologize for even considering the idea of having any contact. As they seem to say amongst the young people today, "My bad."

. . . I have to often remind myself that it is not my duty to rebut every false argument. I used to think it was, when I was a younger man. I no longer think that way, though at times I succumb to the temptation to try, in some measure, to do what I should not.

I have to trust God's Spirit to lead His people as He sees fit. I have had a number of folks contact me about your posting of my letters and actually warn me against "casting pearls before swine" in doing what I am doing even now. I had three people say to me this morning, "You are wasting your time." I will have to accept their counsel after this response.

Mr. Armstrong, I have no interest, whatsoever, in continuing this with you. I don't like you, and I don't believe you like me. Until a few weeks ago I had followed the path of wisdom and avoided every entanglement with you. I erred in moving from that path. You will undoubtedly claim "victory" and shout loud and long about my supposed inability to respond to your "tightly reasoned" arguments. So be it. I know different, and what's more, I think, somewhere down inside, you do too.

[I guess that's why I offered to let Bishop White question me all night long if he should so choose, if I could question him for 60 or 90 minutes, because I know he can beat me in a debate; and he turned down the offer / challenge. Yeah, right. Makes a lot of sense . . . Insecure people do stuff like that all the time, right?]

Continuing to attempt to reason with you is likewise foolish: if you write an angry e-mail, like yesterday, and I reply to it, the next day you'll use the calm, rational response, and upbraid me for being nasty. No matter what I do, the end is the same. I knew this years ago. My memory must be failing or something for even making the attempt.

I'm going to ask you to join me in promising to stay as far away from each other as possible. I'm not asking you to not respond on your own website to what I write or doing whatever you want to do when speaking, etc. I am talking about personal interaction. Stay out of #prosapologian. Don't write to me. Don't ask to do dialogues, debates, or anything else. You just do your thing, and I'll do mine. OK? Let's leave the issues to those who have a true interest in such things, and given that our personalities are such that we cannot possibly co-exist in the same space (physical or cyber....we'd kill each other on Survivor!), let's not obscure the issues with our personal clashes. I think that is a fair request, one that would advance the cause of truth no matter how one views the debate. No one needs to waste their time thinking about our inability to get along. That's just the way it is.

Dave, I pray God's best for you, and health and blessing upon your family.
Likewise. Now why don't you really get lost this time? I'll be ignoring you and other anti-Catholics (barring exceptional circumstances; particularly if it involves defending someone else from anti-Catholic smear campaigns). You have the choice of following your own resolve (GASP! was this a VOW???!!!!!) of seven years ago or not. If you insist, however, on continuing your juvenile mudslinging, ridicule, and condescension, or start "answering" my arguments for a change, knowing that I have said I won't respond (which you -- we have seen from past experience -- absolutely love, because then you are freed from the usual understood intellectual burdens of defense of one's positions), go ahead.

Your folly, intellectual cowardice, incessant double standards, and hypocrisies are manifest to all who aren't already "mind-numbed robot" sycophants in your adoring fan club. Your pathetic "record" of evasion, spin, and sophism has been laid bare for all to see; copiously documented on my Anti-Catholicism page. If you can live with that embarrassment, be my guest. No skin off my back.

[Note: this is my last word on White for now, and I hope, for a long, long time, and indeed (by God's grace) forever, if I can manage to ignore his further attacks which will certainly come my way now. Folks may comment, including blasting me for this post. Feel free. I will NOT be participating in this particular combox, because then I inevitably get accused by the good bishop of perpetuating the thing on and on. It never ends. One must have a definite cut-off point with the Right Reverend Bishop and drop it and move on to real discussion and conversation with true thinkers, as opposed to pseudo-academic sophists and mere polemicists like "Dr." White]

Saturday, February 16, 2008

123 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors in the Post-Elizabethan Era: 1603-1729 (+ 66 English Martyrs of Unknown Dates / Martyr Resources)



Blessed Robert Grissold (standing) and Blessed John Sugar being "drawn" by a horse to slaughter for the heinous and treasonous crime of Catholicism, on 16 July 1604


[biographical information was obtained in most cases from Wikipedia and/or the Catholic Encyclopedia; links to articles are in the caption names. The martyrs are listed chronologically by date of execution]

[See the Wikipedia article for a gruesome description of the English punishment of being hanged, drawn, and quartered]

See related papers:

161 English and 269 Irish Catholic Martyrs During the Reign of the Tyrant Henry VIII: 1534-1544 [at the Very Least: 430 Martyrs]

312 English Catholic Martyrs and Heroic Confessors During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth ("Bloody Good Queen Bess"): 1558-1603

444 Irish Catholic Martyrs and Confessors, Persecuted by English Royalty, Anglicans, Cromwellians, Etc.: 1565-1713

Total of all documented martyrs and heroic confessors for the Catholic faith, persecuted by English "head of the Church" royalty and its minions, in these four papers:

1375


Blessed Robert Grissold


Born c. 1675. Layman. He refused the offer of freedom if he would attend Anglican services and was condemned for assisting Blessed John Sugar. Hanged at Warwick on 16 July, 1604. Going up the ladder he said to the people, "Bear witness, good people, that I die here not for theft, nor for felony, but for my conscience." Then he forgave his persecutors and the hangman, made an act of contrition, and called on the name of Jesus. Lastly, he commended himself into the hands of Almighty God and was turned off the ladder.

Blessed John Sugar

Born 1562. Ordained in 1601. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Warwick on 16 July, 1604. His head and quarters were set up on the gates of the city.

Venerable Lawrence Bailey

Layman. Executed on 16 September 1604 at Lancaster.

Venerable John Fulthering

Layman. Executed at York on 1 August 1605. See next entry.

Blessed Thomas Welbourne

Layman. Bishop Challoner wrote: "Thomas Welbourne was a school-master, . . . and John Fulthering was a layman of the same county, who being zealous Catholics, and industrious in exhorting some of their neighbours to embrace the Catholic faith, were upon that account arraigned and condemned to suffer as in cases of high treason" (II, 12). Executed at York on 1 August 1605.

Blessed William Brown

Layman. Executed at Ripon on 5 September 1605.

Blessed Ralph Ashley

Jesuit lay-brother. Arrested at Hindlip, near Worcester, in connection with the Gunpowder Plot, and committed to the Tower on 3 February 1606. He was terribly tortured, and the reticent answers and trembling signatures of Ashley's extant confessions bear eloquent testimony to his constancy. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered on 7 April, 1606, giving an admirable example of heroically faithful service.

Blessed Edward Oldcorne

Ordained as a Jesuit in 1587. Condemned to death at Worcester for alleged complicity in the Gunpowder Plot, and executed on 7 April 1606.

Henry Garnet (or, Garnett)

Born c. 1554. Ordained as a Jesuit in 1575. Though he generally lived in London, the hotbed of persecution, neither he nor any of his subordinates, who often came to see him, were captured in his lodgings, though perilous adventures were numerous. The conclusion of Garnet's life is closely connected to the Gunpowder Plot. After the plot had been discovered, and Garnet had been arrested, he thought it best in his peculiar circumstances to confess the whole truth about his knowledge, and for this he was tried and executed at the west end of Old St. Paul's, 3 May, 1606.

St. Nicholas Owen

Born c. 1550. For several years he built hiding-places for priests in the homes of Catholic families. He was arrested in 1594, and was tortured, but revealed nothing. He continued his work, and is said to have contrived Fr. Gerard's escape from the Tower of London in 1597. Early in 1606, Owen was arrested again in Worcestershire. Under English law, he was exempt from torture, as he had been maimed a few years previously, when a horse fell on him. Nevertheless, he was tortured on the rack until he died, having betrayed nothing. The exact date of his death is not known; some sources give 2 March, while others place his death on the 12 November 1606.

Blessed Robert Drury

Born 1567. Ordained as a priest and returned to England in 1593. King James I soon proved that he would not be satisfied with any purely civil allegiance. He thirsted for spiritual authority, and, with the assistance of an apostate Jesuit, a new oath of allegiance was drawn up, which in its subtlety was designed to trouble the conscience of Catholics and divide them on the lawfulness of taking it. It was imposed 5 July, 1606, and about this time Drury was arrested. He was condemned for his priesthood, but was offered his life if he would take the new oath. But he felt that his conscience would not permit him to take the oath, and he was executed at Tyburn, 26 February, 1607.

Blessed Mathew Flathers

Born c. 1580. Ordained 1606. He was brought to trial, under the statute of 27 Elizabeth, on the charge of receiving orders abroad, and condemned to death. By an act of unusual clemency, this sentence was commuted to banishment for life; but after a brief exile, the undaunted priest returned to England in order to fulfil his mission, and, after ministering for a short time to his oppressed coreligionists in Yorkshire was again apprehended. Brought to trial at York on the charge of being ordained abroad and exercising priestly functions in England, Flathers was offered his life on condition that he take the recently enacted Oath of Allegiance. On his refusal, he was condemned to death and taken to the common place of execution outside Micklegate Bar, York [21 March 1607]. The usual punishment of hanging, drawing, and quartering seems to have been carried out in a peculiarly brutal manner, and eyewitnesses relate how the tragic spectacle excited the commiseration of the crowds of Protestant spectators.

Blessed George Gervase

Born 1571. Ordained as Benedictine priest in 1603. Refusing to take the new oath of allegiance on account of its infringing on spiritual matters where Catholics were concerned, he was tried, convicted of the offense of merely being a priest, and was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 11 April 1608.

St. Thomas Garnet

Born c. 1575. Because English colleges had been turned over to Protestants, English Catholics had to go to the continent for their education. Thomas, at age 17, was amongst the first students of Saint Omer's Jesuit College in 1592. In September, 1607, he was sent back to England, but was arrested six weeks later by an apostate priest called Rouse. This was the time of King James' controversy with Cardinal Bellarmine about the Oath of Allegiance. Garnet was offered his life if he would take the oath, but he steadfastly refused, and was executed at Tyburn [23 June 1608], protesting that he was "the happiest man this day alive".

Nicholas Atkinson

Priest. Died in 1610.

Blessed Roger Cadwallador

Born 1568. Ordained as a priest in 1592. Arrested on Easter, 1610 and brought before the Bishop, Dr. Robert Bennet, who committed him to Hereford gaol where he was loaded with irons night and day. On being transferred to Leominster gaol he was treated with the greatest inhumanity. He was condemned, merely for being a priest, some months before he suffered. A very full account of his sufferings in prison and of his martyrdom is given by Challoner. He hung very long, suffering great pain, owing to the unskilfulness of the hangman, and was eventually cut down and butchered alive at Leominster, on 27 August 1610.

Blessed George Napper (or, Napier)

Born 1550. By December, 1580, he had been imprisoned. He was still in the Wood Street Counter, London, on 30 September, 1588; but was liberated in June, 1589, on acknowledging the royal supremacy. Ordained by 1603. He was arrested at Kirtlington, four miles from Woodstock, on 19 July, 1610. As late as 2 November it was believed that he would have his sentence commuted to one of banishment. As he refused the oath of allegiance, which described the papal deposing power as a "false, damnable, and heretical" doctrine, it was decided to execute him, and so he was hanged, drawn, and quartered on 9 November 1610 at Oxford, England and his body parts hung on the city gates as warnings to other Catholics.

St. John Roberts

Born c. 1576. Ordained as a Benedictine priest in 1602. He was captured on 2 December 1610; the arresting men arrived just as he was concluding Mass and took him to Newgate in his vestments. On 5 December he was tried and found guilty under the Act forbidding priests to minister in England, and on 10 December 1610 was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn.

Blessed Thomas Somers (or, Sommers)

Priest and schoolmaster. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 10 December 1610 at Tyburn.

Blessed Maurus (or, William) Scott (or, Scot)

Born c. 1579. Benedictine priest (ordained in 1510). He had been firmly of the position that Catholicism and its claims were both false and treasonable, however, while visiting a Catholic friend, he began casually flicking through a book of theology and was struck by the force of an argument he read there. This caused him to enter into a period of intensive study and prayer, and it was only after two years of intellectual and spiritual struggle that he finally decided to be received into the Catholic Church. He was executed on May 30th 1612. He appeared wearing his Benedictine habit and declared himself once again a loyal subject of the King, before being tied to a horse and dragged through the streets to the gallows at Tyburn. Before being executed, he made a declaration of his life, his faith and his conversion to the Catholic Church, and gave the small number of gold coins he had in his purse to the executioner, saying, "Take these, friend, for love of me. I give them to you with good will and gladly do I forgive you my death". He was then hanged, drawn and quartered.

Blessed Richard Newport

Ordained in 1597. Hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn on May 30th 1612.

St. John Almond


Ordained in 1598 and returned to the dangers of England in 1602 as a secular priest. He was arrested in 1608, and then again in 1612. In November of that year seven priests had escaped from prison, and this may have sharpened the zeal of the persecutors. He displayed to the last a great acuteness in argument, and died with the Holy Name upon his lips. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered on 5 December 1612 at Tyburn, London.

John Mawson

Layman. Died in 1614.

Robert Edmonds

Benedictine. Died in prison in 1615.

St. John Ogilvie

[Scottish] Ogilvie, the son of a wealthy laird, was born in 1579 into a respected Calvinist family near Keith in Banffshire, Scotland and was educated in mainland Europe where he attended a number of Catholic educational establishments, and decided to become a Catholic. Ordained as a Jesuit in 1610. After ordination he made repeated entreaties to be sent back to Scotland to minister to the few remaining Catholics in the Glasgow area (after the Scottish Reformation in 1560 it had become illegal to preach, proselytise for or otherwise endorse Catholicism). He returned to Scotland in November 1613 disguised as a soldier, and began to preach in secret, celebrating mass clandestinely in private homes. However, his ministry was to last less than a year. In 1614, he was betrayed and arrested in Glasgow and taken to jail in Paisley. He suffered terrible tortures, including being kept awake for eight days and nine nights, in an attempt to make him divulge the identities of other Catholics. Nonetheless, Ogilvie did not relent. Consequently, after a biased trial, he was convicted of high treason for refusing to accept the King's spiritual jurisdiction. On 10th March 1615, aged 36 years, John Ogilvie was paraded through the streets of Glasgow and hanged at Glasgow Cross.

His last words were "If there be here any hidden Catholics, let them pray for me but the prayers of heretics I will not have". After he was pushed from the ladder, he threw his concealed rosary beads out into the crowd. The tale is told that one of his enemies caught them and subsequently became a lifelong devout Catholic. After his execution Ogilvie's followers were rounded up and put in jail. They suffered heavy fines, but none was to receive the death penalty.

He is the only post-Reformation saint from Scotland.

Christopher Dixon

Priest (O.S.A.). Executed in 1616.

Venerable Cuthbert Tunstall

Priest. Died in 1616.

Blessed Thomas Atkinson

Born c. 1546. Priest. Served in England from 1588 until his martyrdom 28 years later. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 11 March 1616 at age 70. He suffered "with wonderful patience, courage, and constancy, and signs of great comfort".

Blessed John Thulis (or, Thouless)

Born c. 1568. Ordained in 1592. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lancaster, 18 March, 1616. He was imprisoned with thieves, four of whom he converted. These were executed with the martyrs. His quarters were set up at Lancaster, Preston, Wigan, and Warrington.

Blessed Roger Wrenno

Born c. 1576. Layman. Executed at Lancaster, 18 March, 1616. When Wrenno was being hanged, the rope broke, and he was once more offered his life for conformity, but ran swiftly to the ladder and climbed it as fast as he could, saying to the sheriff, "If you had seen that which I have just now seen, you would be as much in haste to die as I am now."

Blessed Thomas Maxfield

Born c. 1590. Ordained in 1614. 1 July 1616 at Tyburn. Within three months of landing in England in 1615 he was arrested, and sent to the Gatehouse, Westminster. After about eight months' imprisonment, he tried to escape by a rope let down from the window in his cell, but was captured on reaching the ground. This was in June, 1616. For seventy hours he was placed in the stocks in a filthy dungeon at the Gatehouse, and was then on Monday night (17 June) removed to Newgate, where he was set amongst the worst criminals, two of whom he converted. On Wednesday, 26 June, he was brought to the bar at the Old Bailey, and the next day was condemned solely for being a priest, under 27 Eliz., c, 2. The Spanish ambassador did his best to obtain a pardon, or at least a reprieve; but, finding his efforts unavailing, had solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in his chapel during the martyr's last night on earth. The procession to Tyburn early on the following morning [1 July 1616] was joined by many devout Spaniards, who, in spite of insults and mockery, persisted in forming a guard of honour for the martyr. Tyburn-tree itself was found decorated with garlands, and the ground round about strewn with sweet herbs. The sheriff ordered the martyr to be cut down alive, but popular feeling was too strong, and the disembowelling did not take place till he was quite senseless.

Blessed Thomas Tunstall

Ordained by 1610. On reaching England he was almost immediately apprehended and spent four or five years in various prisons till he succeeded in escaping from Wisbech Castle. He made his way to a friend's house near Lynn, where is was recaptured and committed to Norwich Gaol. At the next assizes he was tried and condemned (12 July, 1616). He was executed at Norwich on 13 July 1616. The saintliness of his demeanor on the scaffold produced a profound impression on the people.

Blessed William Southerne

Born c. 1579. Priest. Executed at Newcastle-under-Lyme, 30 April, 1618.


St. Edmund Arrowsmith

(Portrait above). Born 1585. His family was constantly harassed for its adherence to Roman Catholism, and in 1605 Edmund left England and went to Douai to study for the priesthood. He was ordained in 1611 and sent on the English mission the following year. He ministered to the Catholics of Lancashire without incident until about 1622, when he was arrested and questioned by the Protestant bishop of Chester. Edmund was released when King James I of England ordered all arrested priests be freed, joined the Jesuits in 1624 and in 1628 was arrested when betrayed by a young man. He was convicted of being a Catholic priest and sleeping with the king. He was sentenced to death, and hanged, drawn and quartered at Lancaster on August 28th 1628. Brought to execution, he prayed for everyone in the kingdom, then said, "Be witnesses with me that I die a constant Roman Catholic and for Christ's sake; let my death be an encouragement to your going forward in the Catholic religion."

Blessed Richard Hurst (or, Herst)

Layman. Hurst was indicted on a trumped-up murder charge. Through Hurst's friends a petition was sent to King Charles I, which petition was also supported by Queen Henrietta Maria. But the Government was successful in procuring the judicial murder of Hurst, by grossly tampering with the very palladium of English liberties. The jury were unwilling to convict; but the foreman of the jury was actually told by the judge, in the house of the latter, that the Government was determined to get a conviction, that a foul murder had been committed, and that the jury must bring in a verdict of guilty. Hurst was accordingly convicted and sentenced to death; on the next day, being commanded to hear a sermon at the Protestant church, he refused and was dragged by the legs for some distance along a rough road to the church, where he, however, put his fingers in his ears so as not to hear the sermon. At the gallows he was informed that his life would be spared if he would swear allegiance to the king, but as the oath contained passages attacking the Catholic Faith he refused and was at once executed [on August 28 or 29, 1628].

Thomas Dyer

Benedictine. Died sometime between 1618 and 1630.

John Gerard

Jesuit. Died in 1637.

Richard Bradley

Born 1605. Jesuit. Seized, imprisoned, but died before trial at Manchester, 20 January 1640.

Thomas Preston (or, Roger Widdrington)

Benedictine. Spent many years in prison and died in the Clink prison, 5 April, 1640.

Laurence Mabbs

Benedictine. Died in a prison in 1641.

Blessed William Ward (or, Webster)

Born c. 1560. Ordained in 1608. Imprisoned for three years in Scotland. On obtaining his liberty he came to England where he laboured for thirty years, twenty of which he spent in various prisons as a confessor for the Faith. He was in London when Parliament issued the proclamation of 7 April, 1641, banishing all priests under pain of death, but refused to retire, and on 15 July was arrested in the house of his nephew. Six days later he was brought to trial at the Old Bailey and was condemned on 23 July. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, 15 or 26 July, 1641, uttering the words, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, receive my soul!"

St. Ambrose (Edward) Barlow

Born 1585. Until 1607 he adhered to the Anglican church, but then turned to the Catholic church. Barlow was educated at the Benedictine monastery of St. Gregory in Douai, France, and entered the English College in Valladolid, Spain, on September 20, 1610. He later returned to Douai where his elder brother (William) Rudesind Barlow was a professed monk. Barlow also professed in 1614 and was ordained a priest in 1617. After his ordination to the priesthood in Douai, Barlow was sent to England on the mission in South Lancashire. Pursued by anti-Catholic mobs and Anglican officials, Barlow was imprisoned at least five times for his proselytization. He was caught for the fifth and final time on Easter Sunday, 25 April 1641 and was arrested by the Vicar of Eccles. He was paraded at the head of his parishioners, dressed in his surplice, and was followed by some 400 men armed with clubs and swords. Although he had been preaching at the time of his apprehension, and could possibly have escaped in the confusion, he voluntarily yielded himself to his enemies. He was taken to Lancaster Castle and, after four months' imprisonment, was tried on September 6th or 7th, and sentenced the following day after confessing to being a Catholic priest. On Friday September 10 [1641] he was hanged, drawn and quartered at Lancaster.

Francis Quashet

Priest. Died in a London prison in 1642.

John Hammond (or, Jackson)

Layman. Died in a London prison in 1642.

Edward Wilkes

Priest. Died in York Castle before execution, in 1642.

Blessed Thomas Green (or, Reynolds)

Born c. 1562. Ordained in 1592. Spent 14 years in prison. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered on 21 January 1642 at Tyburn at age 80, amidst great demonstrations of popular sympathy.

St. Alban (or Bartholomew) Roe

Born c. 1583. Benedictine priest and convert. He was imprisoned twice, for a total of 22 years, meeting his end at Tyburn, where he died by hanging, drawing and quartering on 21 January 1642, amidst great demonstrations of popular sympathy.

Blessed Edward Catherick (or, Huddleston)

Born c. 1605. Ordained c. 1635. Catherick was dragged through the streets of York on a hurdle to the place of execution and hanged, drawn, and quartered on 13 April 1642. His head was placed on Micklegate Bar, and what fragments remained, after the hangman's butchery, were buried at Toft Green.

Blessed John Lockwood

Born 1561. Ordained in 1597. He was dragged through the streets of York on a hurdle to the place of execution and hanged, drawn, and quartered at age 81 on 13 April 1642.

Venerable Edward Morgan

Welsh. Ordained c. 1621. He seems to have laboured in his fatherland, and in April, 1629, was in prison in Flintshire, for refusing the oath of allegiance. Later about 1632 he was condemned in the Star Chamber to have his ears nailed to the pillory for having accused certain judges of treason. Immediately afterwards he was committed to the Fleet Prison in London, where he remained until a few days before his execution at Tyburn, on 26 April, 1642.

Blessed Hugh Green

Born c. 1584. Convert. Ordained in 1612. On 8 March, 1641, Charles I, to placate the Puritan Parliament, issued a proclamation banishing all priests from England, and Green resolved to obey this order. Unfortunately the news had been late in reaching him, and when he embarked the month of grace given for departure was just over. He was therefore arrested, tried, and condemned to death in August. Hanged, drawn, and quartered in Dorchester on 19 August, 1642. As the executioner was quite unskilled, he could not find the martyr's heart, and the butchery with appalling cruelty was prolonged for nearly half an hour. After this the Puritans played football with his head, a barbarity happily not repeated in the history of the English martyrs.

Blessed Thomas Bullaker

Born c. 1604. Ordained Franciscan priest in 1628. On the 11th of September, 1642, Bullaker was seized while celebrating the Holy Sacrifice in the house of the pious benefactress. He was condemned to be drawn on a hurdle to Tyburn and there hanged, cut down alive, quartered and beheaded [carried out at Tyburn on 12 October 1642].

Blessed Thomas Holland

Born in 1600. Ordained as a Jesuit in 1624. He was arrested on suspicion in a London street 4 Oct., 1642, and committed to the New Prison. He was afterwards transferred to Newgate, and arraigned at the Old Bailey, 7 December, for being a priest. There was no conclusive evidence as to this; but as he refused to swear he was not, the jury found him guilty, to the indignation of the Lord Mayor, Sir Isaac Pennington, and another member of the bench named Garroway. On his return to prison great multitudes resorted to him, and he heard many confessions. He was executed at Tyburn, on 12 December, 1642. There he was allowed to make a considerable speech and to say many prayers, and when the cart was turned away, he was left to hang till he was dead.

Placid Peto

Benedictine. Died in prison in 1642 or 1643.

Blessed Henry Heath

Born 1599. Franciscan priest. He was indicted under the 1585 "Act against Jesuits, Seminary priests and other such like disobedient persons" (27 Eliz. c. 2) for being a priest and present in the realm of Queen Elizabeth. While imprisoned at Tyburn he reconciled in the very cart one of the criminals that were executed with him [on 17 April 1643]. He was allowed to hang until he was dead.

Venerable Brian Cansfield

Jesuit. Executed on 3 August 1643 at York Castle.

Blessed Arthur Bell

Born 1590. Franciscan priest. In 1637 he returned to England, where he laboured until November 1643, when he was apprehended as a spy by the parliamentary troops at Stevenage in Hertfordshire and committed to the Newgate prison. The circumstances of his trial show Bell's devotedness to the cause of the Catholic faith and his willingness to suffer for the faith. When condemned to be drawn and quartered it is said that he broke forth into a solemn Te Deum and thanked his judges profusely for the favour they were conferring upon him in allowing him to die for Christ. Executed in London on 11 December 1643.

William Middleton (or, Heathcote)

Benedictine. Died in prison in 1644.

Venerable Richard Price

Colonel. Executed on 7 May 1644 in Lincoln.

Idlephonse Hesketh (or, William Hanson)

Benedictine. O.S.B. Died as a result of the persecution of Puritan soldiers in Yorkshire, around July 1644.

Boniface Kempe (or, Francis Kipton)

Died as a result of the persecution of Puritan soldiers in Yorkshire, around July 1644.

Blessed Ralph Corbie (or, Corby, or, Corbin, or, Corbington)

Born 1598. Ordained as a Jesuit, c. 1626. His imprisonment at Newgate was characterized by cheerfulness and sanctity. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn in London on September 7, 1644.

Blessed John Duckett

Born 1603. Convert. Ordained in 1639. His imprisonment was characterized by cheerfulness and sanctity. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn in London on September 7, 1644.

Walter Coleman

Franciscan. Died in prison in 1645.

St. Henry Morse

Born 1595. He converted to Catholicism, studied for the priesthood in Rome and joined the Jesuits in 1626. Worked as a covert priest in London, and among plague victims in 1636, he caught the plague himself but recovered from it. Betrayed to the authorities by an informer, he was briefly imprisoned in 1638. He ministered to people around the countryside of southern England for years. He was arrested and convicted for practising as a Catholic priest and hanged, drawn, and quartered on 1 February 1645 at Tyburn, London.

John Felton

Jesuit. He was seized and so badly used that, when released (for no one appeared against him) he died within a month, 17 February, 1645.

Venerable John Goodman

Welsh. Born in 1590. Ordained as a Protestant minister but converted and ordained as a priest in 1624. He worked with unremitting zeal for some years, was twice apprehended and twice released. Once more a prisoner in 1642, he was brought to trial and condemned to death, but at the queen's intercession was reprieved. When this act of Clemency on the part of Charles I excited the anger of Parliament, Goodman, with great magnanimity, protested his unwillingness to be a cause of dissension between Charles and his subjects, and begged that he might be sacrificed to appease the popular displeasure. This heroic act of generosity made a considerable sensation, and probably suggested to Wentworth, Lord Strafford, the idea of doing the same. Goodman, however, was left to languish in Newgate, but the hardships soon put an end to his life on Good Friday, 8 April 1645.

Blessed Philip Powel

Born 1594. Ordained as a Benedictine in 1618. He was captured on 22 February, 1646 and denounced as a priest. On 11 May he was ordered to London by the Earl of Warwick, and confined in St. Catherine's Gaol, Southwark, where the harsh treatment he received brought on a severe attack of pleurisy. His trial, which had been fixed for 30 May, did not take place till 9 June, at Westminster Hall. He was found guilty and was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 30 June, 1646.

Blessed Edward Bamber

Priest. Arrested for a third time, he was committed to Lancaster Castle, where he remained in close confinement for three years, once escaping, but recaptured. Executed at Lancaster 7 August, 1646. He suffered with great constancy, reconciling to the Church a felon executed with him, and encouraging his fellow-martyrs to die bravely. His conduct so enraged the persecutors that they urged the executioner to butcher him in a more than usually cruel and savage manner.

Blessed Thomas Whitaker

Born 1614. Ordained in 1638. He was committed to Lancaster Castle, 7 August, 1643, being treated with unusual severity and undergoing solitary confinement for six weeks. For three years he remained in prison, remarkable for his spirit of continual prayer and charity to his fellow-captives. Before his trial he made a month's retreat in preparation for death. Though naturally timorous, and suffering much from the anticipation of his execution, he steadfastly declined all attempts made to induce him to conform to Anglicanism by the offer of his life, saying to the sheriff: "Use your pleasure with me, a reprieve or even a pardon upon your conditions I utterly refuse". He was executed at Lancaster, 7 August, 1646.

Blessed John Woodcock

Converted to Catholicism in 1622. Ordained as a Franciscan priest in 1631. On 7 August 1646, in an attempted execution at Lancaster, he was flung off a ladder, but the rope broke. He was then hanged a second time, was cut down and disemboweled alive.

Thomas Foster (or, Forster)

Jesuit. Died in prison in 1648.

Matthew Brazier (or, Grimes)

Jesuit. Died in prison in 1650.

Robert Cox

Benedictine. Died at the Clink Prison, 1650.

Edmund Cannon
Andrew Fryer (or, Herne, or Richmond)

Priests. Died in London prisons between 1640-1651.

James Brown

Benedictine. Died in prison between 1640-1651.

Blessed Peter Wright

Born 1603. Jesuit priest; ordained in 1636. Wright was condemned under the statute 27 Eliz., c. 2. for being a Catholic priest in England and sentenced on Saturday May 17 to being hanged, drawn and quartered. His execution at Tyburn, London on a hot Whit Monday, May 19, 1651, took place before over twenty thousand spectators. In the period of the trial and the days after his execution, Wright was if not popular, at least a respected figure in public opinion. The sheriff's officers also seem to have been relatively well disposed to him and he was allowed to hang until he was dead, being thus spared the agonies of being eviscerated alive.


St. John Southworth

(Portrait above) Born 1592. Fr. John Southworth came from a Lancashire family that chose to pay heavy fines rather than give up the Catholic faith. He was arrested under the Interregnum and was tried at the Old Bailey under Elizabethan anti-priest legislation . He pleaded guilty to exercising the priesthood and was sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. At his execution at Tyburn, on 28 June 1654, he was not “drawn and quartered” as sentenced.

Thomas Horsley

Layman. Died in a York prison in 1677.

Blessed Edward Coleman

Layman and convert. He became a suspected character, and on the discovery of the Titus Oates Plot, conceived in 1678 for the ruin of the Duke of York whose Catholicity was suspected Coleman was named as one of the conspirators. Conscious of his innocence he took no steps to protect himself, allowed his papers to be seized, and gave himself up for examination. He was tried 28 Nov., 1678, being accused of corresponding with foreign powers for the subversion of the Protestant religion, and of consenting to a resolution to murder the king. His defense was that he had only endeavoured to procure liberty of conscience for Catholics constitutionally through Parliament, and had sought money abroad to further this object. He denied absolutely any complicity with the plot against the king's life. His foreign correspondence of 1675 and 1676, when examined, proved him to be an intriguer, but contained nothing that could connect him in any way with designs on the king's life. However, in spite of the flagrantly false testimony of Oates and Bedloe, he was found guilty, drawn to Tyburn, and there executed, on 3 December, 1678.

Venerable Edward Mico

Jesuit. Died or was executed in Newgate prison on 3 December, 1678.

Venerable Thomas Beddingfield (or, Bedingfield)

Died or was executed on 21 December, 1678, in Gatehouse prison.

Placid Aldham (or, John Adland)

Benedictine and convert. Chaplain to Queen Catherine of Braganza. Died under sentence in 1679.

Robert Green
Lawrence Hill

Laymen. Died in 1679.

William Lloyd

Died under sentence of death, Brecknock, 1679.

Blessed John Grove

Layman. Executed at Tyburn, on 24 January, 1679, saying: "We are innocent, we lose our lives wrongfully, we pray God to forgive them that are the causes of it."

Blessed William Ireland

Born in 1636. Ordained as a Jesuit in 1673. Found guilty in a kangaroo court and executed at Tyburn, on 24 January, 1679.

Venerable Francis Nevil

Jesuit. Died in February 1679, in Stafford jail.

Venerable Francis Levinson (or, Levison)

Franciscan. Died on 11 February, 1679, in prison.

Blessed Thomas Pickering

Born c. 1621. Lay Benedictine. In 1678, Titus Oates made claims of Catholic plots against the King's life, and Pickering was accused of being part of this conspiracy. No evidence except Oates's word was produced and Pickering's innocence was so obvious that the Queen publicly announced her belief in him, saying that she could not accept that he was a risk to the royal family: "I should have more fear to be alone in my chamber with a mouse". Nonetheless, the jury found him guilty. The king was divided between the wish to save the innocent men and fear of the popular clamour. However, on 26 April 1679, the House of Commons petitioned for Pickering's execution. Charles yielded, and on 9 May 1679, Pickering was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn.

Blessed John Fenwick

Ordained as a Jesuit in 1656. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 20 June 1679 at Tyburn.

Blessed John Gavan (or, Green)
Born 1640. Jesuit. Hanged, drawn, and quartered on 20 June 1679 at Tyburn.
Blessed William Harcourt (or, Barrows)

Jesuit. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 20 June, 1679.

Blessed Anthony Turner

Convert. Ordained as a Jesuit in 1661. Arrested in the Titus Oates Plot, he was convicted of treason based on perjured evidence; one of the trial rules was that no Catholic could be believed in court. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 20 June, 1679.

Blessed Thomas Whitbread

Born in 1618. Jesuit priest. He refused to admit Titus Oates as member of the Society of Jesus, and shortly afterwards the celebrated plot was fabricated. Father Whitbread was arrested in London on Michaelmas Day, 1678, but was so ill that he could not be moved to Newgate till three months later. He was first indicted at the Old Bailey, 17 December, 1678, but, the evidence against him and his companions breaking down, he was remanded and kept in prison till 13 June, 1679; later, he was again indicted, and with four other fathers was found guilty on the perjured evidence of Oates, Bedloe, and Dugdale and hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn on 20 June, 1679.

Blessed Richard Langhorne

Born c. 1635. Layman. He was arrested on 15 June, 1667, in connection with the great fire. Arrested a second time on 7 October, 1678, and committed to Newgate without any previous examination, he was kept in solitary confinement for eight months. On 14 June, 1679, he was brought to the bar at the Old Bailey; Oates, Dugdale, Bedloe, and Prance gave evidence against him, and he was found guilty. He was offered a pardon, if he would confess his guilt and also make a disclosure of the property of the Jesuits with which he had become acquainted in his professional capacity. This last he did -- probably with the consent of his fellow-prisoner, the provincial, Fr. Whitbread -- but, as he persisted in declaring his ignorance of any conspiracy, he was executed at at Tyburn, on 14 July, 1679. His last words were to the hangman: "I am desirous to be with my Jesus. I am ready and you need stay no longer for me."

St. William John Plessington

Born c. 1637. he was ordained in Segovia on 25 March 1662. He returned to England in 1663 ministering to covert Catholics in the areas of Holywell and Cheshire. He was imprisoned for two months, and then hanged, drawn and quartered for the crime of being a Catholic priest, on 19 July 1679. From the scaffold at Gallow's Hill in Boughton, Cheshire he spoke the following:
But I know it will be said that a priest ordained by authority derived from the See of Rome is, by the Law of the Nation, to die as a Traitor, but if that be so what must become of all the Clergymen of the Church of England, for the first Protestant Bishops had their Ordination from those of the Church of Rome, or not at all, as appears by their own writers so that Ordination comes derivatively from those now living.
St. Philip Evans

Born 1645. He joined the Society of Jesus, 7 September 1665, and was ordained at Liege and sent to South Wales as a missionary in 1675. In November 1678 a John Arnold, of Llanvihangel Court near Abergavenny, a justice of the peace and hunter of priests, offered a reward of £200 (an enormous sum then) for his arrest. Despite the manifest dangers Father Evans steadfastly refused to leave his flock. He was charged with being a priest and coming into the principality of Wales contrary to the provisions of the law. The execution took place in Gallows Field, Cardiff on 22 July 1679.

St. John Lloyd

Father John Lloyd, a Welshman and a secular priest (ie, a priest not associated with any order) was a Breconshire man, who had taken the missionary oath at Valladolid in 1649 and had been sent to minister in his own country. He was charged with being a priest and coming into the principality of Wales contrary to the provisions of the law. The execution took place in Gallows Field, Cardiff on 22 July 1679.

Blessed Nicholas Postgate

Born c. 1597. Ordained in 1628. Hanged, drawn, and quartered at York, 7 August 1679.

Blessed Charles Meehan (or, O'Meighan, or, Mahoney)

Born c. 1640. Irish Franciscan (ordained in 1671). On the way to Ireland from Rome, his ship was wrecked off the coast of Wales in a storm in 1678. Charles was able to swim ashore with some of his belongings, coming upon land near Milford Haven in Wales. He was arrested, while traveling North on foot, in an effort to find a ship heading for Ireland. His offense was that he did not speak the Welsh language. During his questioning it became known that Charles was a Catholic priest. He was therefore handed over to a cruel man named William Shaw, who beat him and spit upon him, saying "say Mass for us priest." Charles escaped for a short time but was recaptured. Upon his return, he was treated even more brutally. Eventually, he was tried for
treason. There was little reason to punish Charles further, but the Welsh court found him guilty. On August 12, 1679, Charles was taken from his prison cell, and tied to a wooden sled so that he could be dragged outside the town by a horse. There (in Ruthin, North Wales) he was hanged, and drawn and quartered. His last words were a prophesy of King Charles II's conversion to Catholicism. "Now Almighty God is pleased I should suffer this martyrdom. His Holy Name be praised since I die for my religion . . . God forgive you, for I do and I shall always pray for you, especially for those who were good to me in my distress. I pray God to bless our King, Charles, and defend him from his enemies and convert him to the Holy Catholic Faith. Amen." King Charles II was received into the Catholic church on his death bed on the 6th of February, 1685.

St. John Kemble

Born 1599. Kemble was ordained a priest at Douai College, on 23 February 1625. He returned to England on 4 June 1625 as a missioner in Monmouthshire and Herefordshire. Little is known of his work caring for the sustenance of his flock for the next fifty three years. The conditions for Catholics had eased from the ferocious persecution of the Elizabethan period, but the priest performed his ministry discreetly. Father Kemble was staying at his brother's home, Pembridge Castle, near Welsh Newton, when he was arrested. He was warned about the impending arrest but declined to leave his flock, saying, "According to the course of nature, I have but a few years to live. It will be an advantage to suffer for my religion and, therefore, I will not abscond." He was arrested by a Captain John Scudamore of Kentchurch. It is a comment on the tangled loyalties of the age that Scudamore's own wife and children were parishioners of Father Kemble. Father Kemble, now 80, was taken on the arduous journey to London to be interviewed [and] was found guilty of the treasonous crime of being a priest. He was sentenced to death, with the punishment for this being hanged, drawn and quartered [on 22 August 1679]. Before his death Father Kemble addressed the assembled crowd: "I die only for profession the Roman Catholic religion, which was the religion that first made this Kingdom Christian." Kemble was allowed to die on the gallows before drawn and quartered, thus he was spared the agonies suffered by so many of the other martyrs. Miracles were soon attributed to the saintly priest. Scudamore's daughter was cured of throat cancer, while Scudamore's wife recovered her hearing whilst praying at the Kemble's grave.

St. John Wall

Born 1620. Ordained as a priest on 3 December, 1645. He was declared innocent of all plotting and offered his life if he would abjure his religion. Brought back to Worcester, he was executed at Redhill on 22 August 1679.

St. David Lewis

Born 1616. At sixteen years of age, while visiting Paris, he converted to Catholicism and subsequently went to study in Rome, where in 1642 he was ordained as a Catholic priest. Three years later, he became a Jesuit. In 1647 he returned home and, for over thirty years, worked in South Wales. He was arrested in November 1678, at Llantarnam in Monmouthshire, and condemned as a Roman Catholic priest and for saying Catholic masses, at the Assizes in Monmouth in March 1679. He was brought to the bar on a charge of High Treason – for having become a Catholic priest and then remaining in England. He was finally brought back to Usk in Monmouthshire for his execution, and was hanged, drawn, and quartered on 27 August 1679. After the Titus Oates affair (1679–80), the remaining Welsh-speaking Catholic clergy were either executed or exiled.

Thomas Jennison

Jesuit. Died after twelve months' imprisonment, 27 September, 1679. He had renounced a handsome inheritance in favour of his brother, who, nevertheless, having apostatized, turned king's evidence against him.

David Joseph Kemys (or, Kemeys)

Dominican. Died in prison in 1679 or 1680.

Richard Birkett

Priest. Died in 1680 under sentence in Lancaster Castle.

Richard Gerard

Layman. Died in 1680.

John Penketh

Jesuit. Died in prison in 1680.

Richard Lacey

Jesuit. Died in Newgate prison, 11 March, 1680.

Blessed Thomas Thwing

Born in 1635. Ordained in 1665. On October 23, 1680 Thomas Thwing was drawn from York Castle to the place of execution. He was the last of the ""seminary priests"" to be martyred for his faith in England.

Blessed William Howard

Born 1614. On 25 October, 1678, he was committed to the Tower, and it was more than a year before it was decided to try him. Then the resolution was taken so suddenly that he had little time to prepare. The trial, before the House of Lords, lasted from 30 November to 7 December, and no attempt was made to appraise the perjuries of Oates, Dugdale, and Tuberville, and the viscount was of course condemned by 55 votes to 31. It is sad to read that all his kinsmen but one voted against him. His last letters and speeches are marked by a quiet dignity and a simple heroism, which give us a high idea of his character. He was beheaded on Tower-Hill, London, on 29 December, 1680.

William Allison

Priest. Died in York Castle, 1681.

Thomas Molineux

Jesuit. Died in 1681.

William Atkins

Jesuit. Condemned at Stafford, was too deaf to hear the sentence. When it was shouted in his ear he turned and thanked the judge; he was reprieved and died in bonds, 7 March, 1681.

Edward Turner

Jesuit. Died on 19 March, 1681, in Gatehouse prison.




St. Oliver Plunkett

(Portrait above) Irish. Born at Loughcrew near Oldcastle, County Meath, Ireland, 1629. Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, his is the brightest name in the Irish Church throughout the whole period of persecution. Plunket lingered for some time in London, using his influence to mitigate the rigour of the administration of the anti-Catholic laws in Ireland, and it was only in the middle of March, 1670, that he entered on his apostolate in Armagh. From the very outset he was most zealous in the exercise of the sacred ministry. Within three months he had administered the Sacrament of Confirmation to about 10,000 of the faithful, some of them being sixty years old, and, writing to Rome in December, 1673, he was able to announce that "during the past four years", he had confirmed no fewer that 48,655 people. To bring this sacrament within the reach of the suffering faithful he had to undergo the severest hardships, often with no other food than a little oaten bread.

The storm of persecution burst with renewed fury on the Irish Church in 1673; the schools were scattered, the chapels were closed. Dr. Plunket, however, would not forsake his flock. His palace thenceforward was some thatched hut in a remote part of his diocese. As a rule, in company with the Archbishop of Cashel, he lay concealed in the woods or on the mountains, and with such scanty shelter that through the roof they could at night count the stars of the sky. He tells their hardship in one of his letters: "The snow fell heavily, mixed with hailstones, which were very large and hard. A cutting north wind blew in our faces, and snow and hail beat so dreadfully in our eyes that up to the present we have scarcely been able to see with them. Often we were in danger in the valleys of being lost and suffocated in the snow, till at length we arrived at the house of a reduced gentleman who had nothing to lose. But, for our misfortune, he had a stranger in his house by whom we did not wish to be recognized, hence we were placed in a garret without chimney, and without fire, where we have been for the past eight days. May it redound to the glory of God, the salvation of our souls, and of the flock entrusted to our charge".

Writs for the arrest of Dr. Plunket were repeatedly issued by the Government. At length he was seized and cast into prison in Dublin Castle, 6 Dec., 1679, and a whole host of perjured informers were at hand to swear his life away. In Ireland the character of those witnesses was well known and no jury would listen to their perjured tales, but in London it was not so, and accordingly his trial was transferred to London. There was no secret as to the fact that his being a Catholic bishop was his real crime. Lord Brougham in "Lives of the Chief Justices of England" brands Chief Justice Pemberton, who presided at the trial of Dr. Plunket, as betraying the cause of justice and bringing disgrace on the English Bar. This Chief Justice set forth from the bench that there could be no greater crime than to endeavour to propagate the Catholic Faith, "than which (he declared) there is not anything more displeasing to God or more pernicious to mankind in the world". Sentence of death was pronounced as a matter of course, to which the primate replied in a joyous and emphatic voice: "Deo Gratias".

On Friday, 11 July 1681, Dr. Plunket, surrounded by a numerous guard of military, was led to Tyburn, to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Vast crowds assembled along the route and at Tyburn. As Dr. Brennan, Archbishop of Cashel, in an official letter to Propaganda, attests, all were edified and filled with admiration, "because he displayed such a serenity of countenance, such a tranquillity of mind and elevation of soul, that he seemed rather a spouse hastening to the nuptial feast, than a culprit led forth to the scaffold". From the scaffold he delivered a discourse worthy of an apostle and martyr. An eye-witness of the execution declared that by his discourse and by his heroism in death he gave more glory to religion than he could have won for it by many years of a fruitful apostolate.

St. Oliver Plunket's martyrdom closed the long series of deaths for the faith, at Tyburn. The very next day after his execution, the bubble of conspiracy burst. Lord Shaftesbury, the chief instigator of the persecution, was consigned to the Tower, and his chief perjured witness Titus Oates was thrown into jail.

Benedict Constable (or, Counstable)

Benedictine. Died on 11 December, 1683, in Durham Jail.

Lord William Petre

Layman. Died in 1684.

William Bentney (or, Bennet)

Born 1609. Jesuit; ordained by 1640. He was sent to the English missions in 1640, and labored there with great zeal and success for forty-two years. He was then arrested, at the instigation of a nobleman to whose sisters he was administering the sacraments, and was taken to the Leicester jail. No one in those parts being willing to bear witness against him, Bentney was at once transferred to Derby, where he was tried and sentenced to death at the spring assizes of 1682. His execution was delayed for unknown reasons, and on the accession of James II he was released. He was rearrested, however, tried and condemned after the Revolution, but the sentence remained suspended, and on 30 October 1692 he died in Leicester jail.

Paul Atkinson

Franciscan. One of the notable confessors of the English Church during the age which succeeded the persecution of blood. Having been condemned to perpetual imprisonment for his priesthood, starting around the year 1699, he died in confinement in Hurst Castle, after thirty years' imprisonment, on 15 October, 1729. He joined the English Franciscan convent at Douai in 1673, and had served with distinction on the English mission for twelve years, when he was betrayed by a maidservant for the 100 pound reward.

* * * * *

Priests Who Died in London Prisons: Unknown Dates

Austin Abbot (or, John Rivers)
Richard Adams
Thomas Belser
? Gretus
Richard Weston
(Jesuit)
William Wood
John Young

Laymen Who Died in London Prisons: Unknown Dates

Alexander Bales
Sandra Cubley
Anthony Fugatio
(Portugese)
Richard Hart
? Lingon
(widow)
? May
? Reynold
Edmund Sexton
Francis Spencer
John Thomas
Peter Tichborne

Priests Who Died in York Prisons: Unknown Dates

William Bannersley
James Gerard
John Pearson
Thomas Ridall
James Swarbrick

Laymen Who Died in York Prisons: Unknown Dates

Anthony Ash
John Chalmer (or, Chalmar)
Isabel Chalmer
Agnes Fuister
Thomas Luke
Alice Oldcorne
? Reynold
? Robinson
John Stable
Margaret Stable
Geoffrey Stephenson
Christopher Watson
Frances Webster
Margaret Webster
Hercules Welbourne
Alice Williamson

Priests or Monks
Who Died in English Prisons: Unknown Dates

Thomas Blount
Humphrey Browne (Jesuit)
Thomas Brownel (Brigittine laybrother)
James Gerard
Germain Holmes (Franciscan)
John Hudd (Jesuit)
John Pearson
Cuthbert Prescott (Jesuit)
Ignatius Price (Jesuit)
Charles Pritchard (Jesuit)
Thomas Rede (Benedictine)
Francis Simeon (Jesuit)
James Swarbrick
John Thompson (Jesuit)
Charles Thursley (Jesuit)
Thomas Vaughan
Sister Isabel Whitehead (Benedictine)
Boniface Wilford (Benedictine)

Laymen Who Died in English Prisons: Unknown Dates

Richard Hocknell
William Maxfield
Alice Paulin
Edmund Rookwood
Richard Spenser
? Tremaine
Robert Tyrrwhit
Edmund Vyse
Jane Vyse

English Catholic Martyrs Resources

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: English Confessors and Marytrs (1534-1729)
New Catholic Dictionary: English Martyrs
Forty Martyrs of England and Wales - Wikipedia
History Channel: 40 Martyrs of England (also, Elizabethan martyrs)
Eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales - Wikipedia
Carthusian Martyrs [of England] - Wikipedia
List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation - Wikipedia
Complete History of the British Martyrs (book), by William Canon Fleming
A Menology of England and Wales (book), by Richard Stanton
NOVEMBER 22 -- today's saints (English martyrs)
English Speaking Saints And Martyrs: February 2006
Envoy Magazine - Volume 5.2 Looking for Martyrs
Catholic martyrs - Wikipedia
Catholic martyrs of the Early Modern era - Wikipedia
Martyred Roman Catholic priests - Wikipedia
People and Stories - Lancaster martyrs

List of people executed by the Tudors - Wikipedia
People executed under the Tudors - Wikipedia
English executions - Wikipedia
Hanging, drawing, and quartering - Wikipedia
People executed by hanging, drawing and quartering - Wikipedia
People executed for treason - Wikipedia
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Penal Laws
Penal law - Wikipedia
Catholic Emancipation - Wikipedia
Pilgrimage of Grace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recusancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elizabeth 1 and persecution

English saints - Wikipedia
United Kingdom saint stubs - Wikipedia
English Roman Catholic priests - Wikipedia
Online Resources: The Saints [my collection]
Beatified people - Wikipedia
Chronological list of saints and blesseds: 16th Century - Wikipedia
Chronological list of saints and blesseds: 17th Century - Wikipedia

Of Related Interest:

Marian martyrs [non-Catholics executed during the reign of Queen Mary: "Bloody Mary"] - Wikipedia
Oxford Martyrs - Wikipedia
Tudor clergy - Wikipedia

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Final Judgment in Scripture is Always Associated With Works And Never With Faith Alone (50 Passages)



Last Judgment, Michelangelo, 1541


I first thought of this line of thought as fitting for a paper, in debate with anti-Catholic Matt Slick (who oversees the CARM discussion board), in my first "debate" with him, uploaded on 5-22-03. I later made a capsule version of the argument on pp. 87-93 of my book, The Catholic Verses (2004). Matt's words below will be in blue:

* * * * *

If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.

First of all, I don't see anywhere in the Bible that God ever acts like this (if I have overlooked it, you can educate me; the Bible's a big book -- the book of Job would seem to present a quite different perspective), so this is simply one of many Protestant catch-phrases or slogans or evangelistic techniques which cannot be found in the Bible (as far as that goes). I'm not saying it's UNbiblical; just not the sort of thing that one can find there, by example.

Going to heaven and being saved or damned is not a trite affair like a TV quiz show or something. One will either be saved or not, and they will know that instantly when they stand before God. There will be no arguing with God (Job 40:1-2; cf. 42:3). They will know truth and know why they missed the mark. People who are damned may try to foolishly plead their case, I suppose, as in Matthew 25. But Jesus simply declares and sends them away to their fate. He doesn't stand there like Bob Barker and ask them questions -- not in the sense of this Protestant catch-phrase, anyway.

That said, Catholics believe in sola gratia as much as Protestants do. You ought to know this, but it appears that you do not.

Would you mention your prayers to Mary, your indulgences, your works, your sincerity, or what?

This is covered in my above answer. Each of those matters must be discussed individually, given the abominable ignorance that many Protestants have concerning them. Suffice it to say that we do not accept the unbiblical, damnable notion of "works-salvation." Catholics are neither Pelagians nor semi-Pelagians. And you ought to know that, too. But (by the looks of it) you do not. Join the crowd.

You didn't answer my question. Instead, you blurred the issue with prose. I am waiting.

I answered in four different ways:

1. I said Catholics believed in sola gratia.

2. I said that we are not Pelagians.

3. I said we don't believe in works-salvation

4. Furthermore, I denied that the hypothetical situation would even take place (thus questioning why you put it in those terms), judging by the biblical teachings. I will be silent when I am before God, on Judgment Day, and I'll already know in an instant if I am damned or saved, and there is no arguing with God and no nonsense or prideful self-delusions any longer at that frightful, awesome hour.

What I was trying to get across was that the very situation was implausible to me, and couldn't be backed up by biblical example (I don't recall God acting like this anywhere in the Bible, and nothing Matt offered in reply disabused me of the notion at all), and so I wondered aloud why Matt asked the question in the first place?

One knows with absolute certainty in heaven on Judgment Day whether they are saved or damned, and God will not question them like a TV quiz show host or certain Protestant evangelists who too often resemble carnival barkers or used car salesmen in the subtlety of their approach.

I replied to Matt that I didn't find such a scenario in the Bible; that at the Final Judgment God doesn't wrangle with people (and people don't argue with God -- just as with any earthly judge); He simply declares judgment, which is precisely what happens in Matthew 25. He doesn't ask them questions about their eschatological fate in heaven or hell. This is true in Matthew 25 and also suggested at the end of Job (which I also cited).

My point was that God (as far as we know from revelation) doesn't inquire of the person on Judgment Day, "why should I let you into heaven?" Lastly, while one may know he is damned, all the particular reasons may not be known, as indicated in Matthew 25, and God could explain that, as indeed He did in this instance. But I wasn't dealing with that question in my reply; I only asserted that God didn't talk (based on biblical revelation) in the manner that Matt's familiar evangelical slogan and lingo would have Him talk.

Nowhere does God ask people to give Him a reason why He should let them into heaven. All we learn is that He declares and records earthly deeds and damnation or salvation: precisely as I argued: God declares, He doesn't act like a game show host! -- talking back and forth with the sinner, as if salvation were the equivalent of negotiations at a vegetable market.

I find it extremely interesting that in both passages our Protestant friend cites to us concerning judgment [Mt25:31,41-46 and Rev 20:11-15] we hear not a single word about the "faith alone" which is all that Matt can talk about in the context of judgment. Why is this, if in fact, faith alone is the sole criteria of salvation or damnation? Wouldn't that seem to be, prima facie, a bit strange and unexpected from an evangelical viewpoint? If Jesus had attended a good evangelical seminary and gotten up to speed on His soteriology, the passage no doubt would have been considerably shorter:

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Then He will also say to those on His left, "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for you did not believe in Me with Faith Alone." These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous who believed with Faith Alone into eternal life.

And:

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to whether they had Faith Alone. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to whether they had Faith Alone.

Instead, we hear all this useless talk about works, as if they had anything to do with salvation! Doesn't Jesus know that works have no connection to faith whatsoever, and that sanctification and justification are entirely separated in good, orthodox evangelical or Calvinist theology? After all, Matt has informed us:

. . . the distinction between justification and sanctification in Catholicism is not only blurred, it is castrated.

Maybe our Lord Jesus attended a liberal synagogue, influenced by heretical Romish ideas. Why does Jesus keep talking about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and being judged "according to their deeds"? What in the world do all these "works" have to do with salvation? Why doesn't Jesus talk about Faith Alone??!! Something is seriously wrong here. Perhaps all those Pelagian, idolatrous Catholic monks who transcribed the Bible changed it in the Middle Ages.

Seriously, though, what is in the Bible is the following declaration against faith alone:

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (James 2:14; RSV)

So faith itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:17; cf. 2:20, 2:26)

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Despite all this overwhelming biblical data, Matt insists on speaking only of faith at the Judgment, to the complete exclusion of works (most contrary to the biblical record of what actually happens, whenever judgment is described).

Now, I may not personally mention my works, but the striking point here is that God certainly does mention works, and works alone, as at least one reason (if not the sole one) for someone's salvation, in the same exact passages we have been presented for supposed confirmation of Matt's slogan, which expressly questions any role for works whatsoever. Catholics do not believe in "works-salvation." Works do not save anyone. This is Catholic teaching. But works are neither absolutely separated from faith nor from salvation. This is a different concept. And we clearly see that in the passages above.

Biblically speaking (at least from the above passages, if nothing else), the exact opposite of what Matt asserts is true: if God asked me Matt's question (assuming for the moment that God acts like this), and I replied by recounting repeated acts of charity and mercy that I had done: feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, inviting in strangers, clothing the naked, visiting prisoners, and various other "deeds" of mine, I would be doing nothing other than what Jesus Himself does when He describes why a person is saved (at the very least part of the reason why, but the only one given in these passages -- which is my immediate point).

Here are 50 biblical passages I have found about judgment where works are mentioned as the criteria but not faith alone. If anyone can find related passages that give faith alone as the criterion for salvation apart from any mention of works (i.e., in the context of the final judgment), please let me know. I'll be forever indebted to you (no pun intended).

I did finally find one that at least mentions faith in the context of judgment (but alas, not faith alone): Revelation 21:8 includes the "faithless" among those who will be damned for eternity. Even there it is surrounded by many bad works that characterize the reprobate person.
1 Samuel 28:15-19

Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress; for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do." And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am'alek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. Moreover the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines."

2 Kings 22:13 (cf. 2 Chron 34:21)

"Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

Psalm 7:8-10

The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me. O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish thou the righteous, thou who triest the minds and hearts, thou righteous God. My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.

Psalm 58:11

Men will say, "Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth."

Ecclesiastes 12:14


For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Isaiah 59:18

According to their deeds, so will he repay, wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies; . . .

Jeremiah 4:4 (cf. 21:12)

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your doings."

Ezekiel 7:3 (cf. 7:8; 33:20)

Now the end is upon you, and I will let loose my anger upon you, and will judge you according to your ways; and I will punish you for all your abominations.

Ezekiel 36:19

I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries; in accordance with their conduct and their deeds I judged them.

Micah 5:15

And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance upon the nations that did not obey.

Zephaniah 2:3

Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the wrath of the LORD.

Matthew 5:22

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 7:16-27

You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So every sound tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers." Every one then who hears these words of mine, and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine, and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.

Matthew 10:22 (cf. Mt 24:13; Mk 13:13)

. . . But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 16:27

For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.

Matthew 18:8-9 (cf. Mk 9:43,47)

And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

Matthew 25:14-30

"For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, `Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, `Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'

Matthew 25:31-46

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19)

Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 14:13-14

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 21:34-36

"But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man.

John 5:26-29

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Romans 1:18

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

Romans 2:5-13

But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

1 Corinthians 3:8-9

He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

1 Thessalonians 3:12-13

. . . may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you, so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 5:23

May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-12

. . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 6:7-8

For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

1 Peter 1:17


. . . who judges each one impartially according to his deeds . . .

1 Peter 4:13 (cf. Rom 8:17)

But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

2 Peter 3:10-14

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.

Jude 6-16

And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion. These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever. It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, loud-mouthed boasters, flattering people to gain advantage.

Jude 20-21

But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Revelation 2:5

Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 2:23

. . . I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

Revelation 20:11-13

Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Revelation 21:8

But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.

Revelation 22:12

Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.
Therefore, in light of this survey of biblical statements on the topic, how would we properly, biblically answer the unbiblical, sloganistic questions of certain evangelical Protestants? Here again is the question from Matt Slick:

If you were to die tonight and face judgment and God were to ask you why He should let you into heaven, what would you tell Him? Just curious.

He's completely well-intentioned and has the highest motivations. He desires that folks should be saved. But he is dead wrong in his assumptions, when they are weighed against the overwhelming, (far as I can tell) unanimous biblical record. Our answer to his question and to God when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:
1) I am characterized by righteousness.

2) I have integrity.

3) I'm not wicked.

4) I'm upright in heart.

5) I've done good deeds.

6) I have good ways.

7) I'm not committing abominations.

8) I have good conduct.

9) I'm not angry with my brother.

10) I'm not insulting my brother.

11) I'm not calling someone a fool.

12) I have good fruits.

13) I do the will of God.

14) I hear Jesus' words and do them.

15) I endured to the end.

16) I fed the hungry.

17) I provided drink to the thirsty.

18) I clothed the naked.

19) I welcomed strangers.

20) I visited the sick.

21) I visited prisoners.

22)
I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.

23) I'm not weighed down with dissipation.

24) I'm not weighed down with drunkenness.

25) I'm not weighed down with the cares of this life.

26) I'm not ungodly.

27) I don't suppress the truth.

28) I've done good works.

29) I obeyed the truth.

30) I'm not doing evil.

31) I have been a "doer of the law."

32) I've been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.

33) I'm unblamable in holiness.

34) I've been wholly sanctified.

35) My spirit and soul and body are sound and blameless.

36) I know God.

37) I've obeyed the gospel.

38) I've shared Christ's sufferings.

39) I'm without spot or blemish.

40) I've repented.

41) I'm not a
coward.

42) I'm not faithless.

43) I'm not polluted.

44) I'm not a murderer.

45) I'm not a fornicator.

46) I'm not a sorcerer.

47) I'm not an idolater.

48) I'm not a liar.

49) I invited the lame to my feast.

50) I invited the blind to my feast.

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Martin Luther's Heretical Notion of Soul Sleep and Rejection of Purgatory and Prayers For the Dead Based on This Denial (+ William Tyndale Agrees)



Just when I think that I've discovered pretty much all of Martin Luther's many false beliefs, and that there couldn't possibly be any more, lo and behold, here comes another one out of nowhere. Today I saw a comment from blog regular Jordan Potter, mentioning English Protestant William Tyndale's acceptance of "conditional immortality" (a sort of synonym for, or notion associated with, soul sleep, or psychopannychia).

Curious, I started Googling, and soon found that Martin Luther also espoused this false doctrine, in overreaction to supposed excessive "Greek philosophical / Platonic / Aristotelian," etc. influence on Catholic Christianity (in this instance, on its eschatology, or "psychology": i.e., doctrine of the soul).

Catholics, on the other hand (and post-Luther Lutherans, as we shall see, and most Protestants), believe that the soul of man is conscious at all times, either in Sheol / Hades, purgatory, heaven, or hell, and never ceases being conscious. I recently defended this belief from Scripture. Nor is this only a "Catholic thing." It's a biblical thing (which is precisely why the vast majority of Christians have believed it). Hence, John Calvin soundly refuted the contrary error from Scripture, in 1536. Luther wrote in 1542:
But we Christians, who have been redeemed from all this through the precious blood of God's Son, should train and accustom ourselves in faith to despise death and regard it as a deep, strong sweet sleep; to consider the coffin as nothing other than our Lord Jesus' bosom or Paradise, the grave as nothing other than a soft couch of ease or rest. As verily, before God, it truly is just this; for he testifies, John 11:11: Lazarus, our friend sleeps; Matthew 9:24: The maiden is not dead, she sleeps. Thus too, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, removes from sight all hateful aspects of death as related to our mortal body and brings forward nothing but charming and joyful aspects of the promised life. He says there [vv.42ff]: It is sown in corruption and will rise in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor (that is, a hateful, shameful form) and will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness and will rise in strength; it is sown in natural body and will rise a spiritual body.

(Christian Songs Latin and German, For Use at Funerals, from: Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, Vol. 6, 287-288)
Based on the premise of this unscriptural denial (abominated even by fellow "reformer" John Calvin), he goes on in the very next paragraph to blast purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc. (note the important, revealing connecting word "accordingly"):
Accordingly we have driven the pestilential abominations from our churches, such as vigils, masses for the dead, processions, purgatory, and all other mockery and hocus pocus on behalf of the dead. We have abolished all these and have cleaned them out thoroughly and do not want our churches to be houses of wailing and places of mourning any longer . . . Nor do we sing any funereal hymns or doleful songs over our dead and at the graves, but comforting hymns, of the forgiveness of sins, of rest, of sleep, of life, and of the resurrection of Christians who have died . . .
Luther alludes to this causal connection on the next page (p. 289), referring to "purgatory with its torment and satisfaction, on account of which their dead can neither sleep nor rest." If men are only conscious after being resurrected to eternal life in heaven, they would be in no need of our prayers. Purgatory is impossible without immaterial conscious souls. Luther denied one necessary premise of purgatory; therefore, purgatory goes along with it. Nor can souls be prayed for if there is no conscious state other than heaven or hell, because those in hell are beyond prayer and those in heaven have no need of it whatsoever.

Others have noted the relationship between Luther's erroneous soul sleep affinities and his rejection of purgatory. For example, Bruce A. Demarest and Gordon Russell Lewis, in their book, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994, three-volumes-in-one edition), state on Vol. III, p. 451:
Reacting to the Roman doctrine of purgatory, Luther on occasion described the intermediate state as a kind of sleep. At death the believer sleeps in the grave awaiting the Last Judgment rather than enduring purgatory . . . in that state the soul is less than fully conscious . . . Luther was not dogmatic on this issue, and in later writings he appears to have softened this position.

[my emphasis; three passages from Luther were also cited and can be seen online, but I didn't include them here because I couldn't access the documentation on Google Book Search]
Likewise, Lutheran Luther scholar Julius Köstlin comments (my emphases):
The scriptural mode of referring to "the sleep of the dead" inclined him to adopt the theory of a sleep of the soul, in which it shall not know where it is until the Day of Judgment. This, he acknowledges in 1522 to Amsdorf, who asked him for his opinion on the subject. . . . he did not venture to regard such a state of sleep as universal. It merely appears probable to him that the majority of the dead are in such a state. The inclination to this view must also have helped to undermine for Luther the very foundations of the theory of purgatory. Thus, he writes in the letter to Amsdorf, that purgatory is for him not a place, but an inner condition, namely, a foretaste of hell in this present life, such as Jesus, David, Job and many others experienced (in this world). . . . As opposed to the theory, that all souls tarrying between heaven and earth are in purgatory, he again points to the sleep which may be their condition.

(The Theology of Luther: In Its Historical Development and Inner Harmony, Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1897, Vol. I, p. 471)
The aforementioned letter to Nicholas Amsdorf was dated 13 January 1522. Here is a portion, from another Protestant biography of Luther (my emphasis):
As to purgatory, I think it a very uncertain thing. It is probable, in my opinion, that, with very few exceptions indeed, the dead sleep in utter insensibility till the day of judgment.

(The Life of Luther, Jules Michelet; translated by William Hazlitt, London: H.G. Bohn, second edition, 1862, p. 133)
So in one fell swoop, Luther eliminates purgatory and prayer for the dead, based on a denial (with some exceptions) of the consciousness of the soul after death, itself based on fallacious and shoddy biblical exegesis and false equation of biblical Christianity with pagan Greek philosophy. This would follow logically, even if Luther had not expressly connected the two things in his own words, but since he himself has made the association, we know that he was aware of his own rationale (at least in part) for ditching these previous Christian beliefs. Luther may be a bit unsure about soul sleep, but he is flat-out certain that purgatory and prayers for the dead are abominations, based on his unsure opinion on soul sleep.

Luther scholar Paul Althaus himself exhibits a thorough anti-traditional doctrinal attitude when he describes Catholic eschatology and doctrine of the soul as follows:
Thus the original biblical concepts have been replaced by ideas from Hellenistic gnostic dualism. The New Testament idea of the resurrection which affects the total man has had to give way to the immortality of the soul . . .

Against this background, we can measure the significance of Luther's Reformation for eschatology.

(The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 414)
That said, he presents what he believes to be Luther's position on this matter:
Luther generally understands the condition between death and the resurrection as a deep and dreamless sleep without consciousness and feeling.

(Ibid., 414)
Althaus helpfully informs his readers that confessional Lutheranism didn't even agree with Luther in this area of thought:
Later Lutheran Church theology did not follow Luther on this point. Rather, it once again adopted the medieval tradition and continued it. Before the resurrection, souls live in a blessed condition with Christ even though they are without bodies. . . . The dualistic understanding of the soul conquered once again.

(Ibid., 417)
Of course, Luther wouldn't be Luther if he didn't contradict himself, or waffle, or vacillate, or condemn someone else for believing what he himself believes in his weaker moments, or on odd-numbered days in June in leap years, or when the moon is full in autumn. There are some indications that he qualified or changed his beliefs expressed above. I cite again the letter to Nicholas von Amsdorf (13 January 1522). Luther cautiously responded to the question of what happens to the soul after death:
Concerning your “souls,” I have not enough [insight into the problem] to answer you.  I am inclined to agree with your opinion that the souls of the just are asleep and that they do not know where they are up to the Day of Judgment. I am drawn to this opinion by the word of Scripture, “They sleep with their fathers.”  The dead who were raised by Christ and by the apostles testify to this fact,  since they were as if they had just awakened from sleep and didn’t know where they had been. To this must be added the ecstatic experiences of many saints. I have nothing with which I could overthrow this opinion. But I do not dare to affirm that this is true for all souls in general, because of the ecstasy of Paul,  and the ascension of Elijah and of Moses (who certainly did not appear as phantoms on Mount Tabor). 

Who knows how God deals with the departed souls? Can’t [God] just as well make them sleep on and off (or for as long as he wishes [them to sleep]), just as he overcomes with sleep those who live in the flesh? And again, that passage in Luke 16 [:23 ff.] concerning Abraham and Lazarus, although it does not force the assumption of a universal [capacity of feeling on the part of the departed],yet it attributes a capacity of feeling to Abraham and Lazarus, and it is hard to twist this passage to refer to the Day of Judgment.

I think the same about the condemned souls; some may feel punishments immediately after death, but others may be spared from [punishments] until that Day [of Judgment]. For the reveler [in that parable] confesses that he is tortured;  and the Psalm says, “Evil will catch up with the unjust man when he perishes.” You perhaps also refer this either to the Day of Judgment or to the passing anguish of physical death. Then my opinion would be that this is uncertain. It is most probable, however, that with few exceptions, all [departed souls] sleep without possessing any capacity of feeling. Consider now who the “spirits in prison” were to whom Christ preached, as Peter writes:  Could they not also sleep until the Day [of Judgment]?  Yet when Jude says concerning the Sodomites that they suffer the pain of eternal fire, he is speaking of a present [fire].

(
Luther's Works, Vol. 48, 360-361)
Paul Althaus elaborates:
Some Bible passages do compel Luther to make certain exceptions to the rule that the dead sleep. God can also awaken them for a time- just as he allows those of us here upon the earth to alternate between waking and sleeping. And the fact that they are asleep does not hinder souls from experiencing visions and from hearing God and the angels speak. (Althaus, ibid., 415; from WA 43; 360; cf. LW 4, 313)
More ambiguous Luther statements:
We do not have to know how the soul rests. It is certain that it is alive.

(Lectures on Genesis; written between 1539-1541; LW 5:74)

But now another question arises. Since it is certain that the souls are living and are in peace, what kind of life or rest is this? But this question is too lofty and too difficult for us to be able to define it. For God did not want us to know this in this life. Thus it is enough for us to know that souls do not go out of their bodies into the danger of tortures and punishments of hell, but that there is ready for them a chamber in which they may sleep in peace. Nevertheless, there is a difference between the sleep or rest of this life and that of the future life. For toward night a person who has become exhausted by his daily labor in this life enters into his chamber in peace, as it were, to sleep there; and during this night he enjoys rest and has no knowledge whatever of any evil caused either by fire or by murder. But the soul does not sleep in the same manner. It is awake. It experiences visions and the discourses of the angels and of God. Therefore the sleep in the future life is deeper than it is in this life. Nevertheless, the soul lives before God. With this analogy, which I have from the sleep of a living person, I am satisfied; for in him there is peace and quiet. He thinks that he has slept barely one or two hours, and yet he sees that the soul sleeps in such a manner that it also is awake.

(Lectures on Genesis; written between 1539-1541; LW 4:313)
Luther's opinion is somewhat unsure and shifting; hence undogmatic. But I will again contend that Luther is not unsure at all about what he has rejected from unbroken Christian tradition: purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc. In the same work cited immediately above, for example, he wrote:
I have said this [i.e., preceding material about the conscious or unconscious state of the dead] in order to curb unprofitable and idle thoughts about these questions . . .

But here one must also censure the foolishness of the papists, who have devised five places after death: . . . (3) purgatory; (4) the limbo of the fathers (in the New Testament they added Paradise on account of Christ's statement in Luke 23:43: "Today you will be with Me in Paradise") . . .

The third sphere is that of purgatory . . . From this source comes the hogwash of indulgences and the entire papistic religion.

The fourth place is the limbo of the fathers. They say that Christ descended to this place, broke it open, and set free -- not from hell but from limbo -- the fathers who were troubled by the longing and waiting for Christ but were not enduring punishments or torments.

With these silly ideas the papists have filled the Church and the world.

(Lectures on Genesis; written between 1539-1541; LW 4:314-315)
Luther ridiculously argues that the "Paradise" referred to by Jesus in Luke 23:43 is heaven. The only problem with this is that Jesus didn't go to heaven on the day he died ("today"). He ascended to heaven two days later. So where was He and the dead criminal on the day of their deaths? The limbo of the fathers fits the bill perfectly. As Luke 16 indicates, it was divided into two sections: for the good and the wicked. Jesus went to deliver the saved elect, as many Christians (not just Catholics) believe is referred to in Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter