My opinion regarding bishops attached to abuse charges

I am writing this to give my opinion about bishops who are, with good reason (not witch hunt false charges), attached to the sexual abuse charges of either covering up or, equally as bad, being negligent in overseeing the purity of spiritual subordinates.

I believe every one of you who covered up or who looked the other way, or who should have investigated but did not, should offer your resignations. This is why.

Being a bishop does not, no matter how much the verbiage and process sound like it, confer higher status or spirituality. I'm saying this in comfort, not in criticism. You must not become so attached to the responsibilities, authority and prestige of being a bishop so much that you view stepping away from it as a diminishing. The highest genuine honors of serving God, and one's flock, is to be a parish priest or priest to a community, or even the contemplative life.

If any of you bishops (including ones who are not in some sort of hot water) cannot follow the imagery I am going to offer you, you have to do some prayer and soul searching.

Imagine that you are no longer serving a bishop's capacity, but you are back to being a parish priest, or one attached to a seminary in a formation capacity, or even entering contemplative service in a monastery. How much of this image makes you feel diminished? Compare this to the feeling of release and of being freed of burdens that separate you from first hand contemplation of God through celebrating the Mass, hearing confessions, prayer, etc.

It is not just humility that caused many saints, when priests, to literally flee when the role of bishop was thrust upon them. Most saints genuinely preferred being parish priests, or members of a community, or contemplatives than they did seeking that princely office. Some of them feigned madness or stupidity to avoid it ha.

If you are really in service to God and his flock, most of you should feel that if your bishop responsibilities were taken from you, that it would be a relief and that once again you are getting down to the brass tacks (American slang for back to the basics, the fundamentals). The more a person seeks being a bishop (or outside the Catholic church, giving themselves that title) the more I wonder why they are seeking it so very much. Usually the answer is that it is viewed as a promotion.

Friends, brothers, though, remember one thing. A promotion upward in human circles is usually a lateral promotion or a downward promotion away from God. Layers of artificial concerns intrude upon even the most well meaning bishop's office. If you stop thinking of a bishop's chair as being a promotion or "increased authority," you will move closer, again, to God. This is why I think this is a valuable mental imagery exercise of visualization for even well functioning bishops who are serene and capable in their calling. Once in a while remember that it's not really a promotion and, further, the most humble duties of a priest is usually that which is closest to God's heart.

I hope that you have found this helpful.
Honoring always JMJ.

Case study: Quiz for Catholic haters faith/reason

We all know about the Christians who are Catholic haters. They are the ones who despise the Catholic Church, claiming that it's not the true faith, "there's no Pope in the Bible" and that Catholics are all going to be "left behind" in the rapture and thus end up going to hell.

Hmm. Well, this is for any who might be sado-masochists and thus read my blog, ha ha ha, but mostly this is a case study, especially for my much loved younger readers (hi there!) Here is how to handle this situation using both faith and reasoning. The faith part assumes that you are a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ as Messiah, Savior and Son of God. Assuming that, let's go to work with using reasoning.

POOF!!!!!!!!!!

One of these Christians who has genuine faith in Jesus Christ but who hates Catholics has been transported back in time, exactly to the time and place of Jesus Christ.

He or she looks around, and there is Jesus himself, in the process of selecting the Apostles. The Apostles include Simon, whom Jesus renames Peter (the Rock), who Catholics consider the first pope. The Apostles also include Judas Iscariot, the one who will betray Jesus.

What does our Catholic hating Christian do, he or she who knows how the future turns out. As tempted as he or she is to run up to Jesus and tell him not to select or trust Judas, he or she, through their genuine faith, realizes that Judas (or someone) will inevitably betray Jesus since that is God's will and his greater plan. So he or she puts a sock in their pie hole about telling Jesus not to select Judas.

But oh my goodness, there is the big fat tempting target Peter.

So let's assume that our Catholic hating but genuinely loving of Jesus runs up to Jesus and throws him or her self at Jesus and implores him "Do not select Peter as an Apostle! Don't you know what will happen? They will establish a false church around him, called the Roman Catholic Church! At it's peak it will have one billion members! They will all go to hell!"

[Bonus question. Do you think he or she will actually blush a bit at "telling Jesus what is going to happen in the future?"]

So here are the questions, using reasoning.

Question 1. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and you were suddenly, with no explanation, time traveled back to precisely when Jesus selects Peter and/or later when Peter is given by Christ "the keys," would you beg or admonish Jesus not to select Peter? Why?

Question 2. If you do not go quite that far as to actually beg Jesus not to select Peter, would you "warn" Jesus about what "will happen in the future?" Why? (I mean, would you reckon Jesus does not know? What would that say about him being the Son of God? I mean, that he would need you to tell him what will happen.)

Question 3. Suppose that you DO tell Jesus either 1 or 2. Which of Jesus' replies would you prefer? I assume that you would prefer the reply that strengthens your faith, because what other objective would you have?

A. "Thanks for telling me. You are right; I am not going to select Peter after all."

B. "No kidding.... really? That's what is going to happen in the future? A billion Catholics? You were right to tell me, because that's not what I want at all!"

C. "Well, if I change things now that will change the scriptures, of course, and you'll return to your time and find it all different and messed up. So here's what I will do. I'll let things go as you know they did, but .... (hey, what exactly is your name again?).... I'll have Paul write in an epistle that in the year 2000 all Catholics should now listen to you and what you say, and abandon the Church and follow you!" You return to your own time and find that sure enough, Paul wrote to Timothy, "By the way in the year 2000 all Catholic Church members should abandon their faith and listen to Joe Schmo instead, and he will tell them how to be saved."

D. "Yes, you are right. God and I know that billions of people will make a really bad mistake based on what I said to Peter, and all of them will go to hell. Depressing, isn't it?" (That ought to make you really want to worship Jesus).

E. Jesus sits you down and fills you in on the "secret plan" that God "has," and you leave all self glorified knowing that YOU know something that even the Apostles do not know. You laugh up your sleeve at how awesome a secret you have and oh well, God has his reasons for letting over a billion people make the "wrong" choice and while thinking they are following Jesus, they are probably going to end up in hell cause God has a "secret plan" *chortle.*

Young people, which of these answers, if any of them, would make you love Jesus more and trust God more? None I would reckon, but hey, that's just me saying.

If you have faith you MUST ALSO HAVE BRAINS AND REASONING BASED on FAITH and TRUST.

Either Jesus is here to save and not to destroy, or he is not. Would Jesus chuckle to himself at over a billion people thinking they are following him, but they are all going to hell instead? Would God let so many Christian people "misunderstand?" What kind of Jesus, Son of God, or God the Father would THAT be? Not the Jesus or the God that I know and love.

And wow, if Jesus needs Joe Schmo to go back in time and clue him in, that would sure make a lot of people nervous. Did Jesus really launch the New Covenant without having a clue what would happen? He knew what Saul (who became Paul) was up to. Why would he not know that Joe Schmo two thousand years later could have told Jesus that he needs to tighten up his decision making and his scripture wording, since over a billion people will "misunderstand" and thus miss out in the rapture and go to hell? Yikes.

When someone has this type of blind disregard for fellow Christians, you have to give him or her the benefit of the doubt, which they are not giving in their turn, and allow belief that their faith is genuine. OK, so you believe in Jesus and God. So..... why do you not trust them to know better than you? You need to help such people use some reasoning along with their faith, using dialogue such as what I provided. Otherwise you just quote scriptures in kind of a rote kabuki theater fashion at each other. Put them there in that place of time and ask them, "What would you say to Jesus? And what reply could Jesus make that would satisfy you?"

Enlightening, no? ;-)

Self appointed morality watchdogs not justified

When I look back on my blog posts, I am always sad at how irate, chastising and warning of divine retribution is the tone of many of them. Just think, though, that if I am shrill and often livid in my nagging how irate God, Jesus Christ, and the angels must be. If you need a refresher in being reminded that Jesus is not the peacenik stoned grooving “anything goes” guy, read any part of the Gospels where he speaks of the hypocrites, the vipers, and the false words of those around him. And, of course, the Old Testament provides much reminder of the wrathful God, who never changes: he is both loving and forgiving, but also perfect in his rendering of judgment, both at the end of one’s life, but also day to day in the course of knowing all that there is to know about each person’s thoughts and deeds. If I stood on the top of this building and screamed with a megaphone, “You are all in danger of not being saved and going to hell,” I would not be understating things.

Here is the problem. People have become consumed with a sexualized and idolatrous view of life, including of God and his will for how humans should live. As a result, even those who believe in Jesus Christ and have been born again in him do some very inconsistent things for being saved, due to the prurient and vicious, easily tempted, problem of human nature. Here is an exercise that I think all of you will find “relevant” and spiritually revealing.

Imagine that someone that you know, or a perfect stranger, has been secretly photographed while performing what one considers being an unchaste, adulterous, or fornicating activity. Would you look at the photograph? If you would, and you have, you are in grave danger of your soul, despite how often you proclaim Jesus Christ. Would you tell other people about the photograph and the acts? In other words, would you treat that information and visual as something to share with others? Worse, would you keep a copy for prurient and even sexual self gratification? What do you think any of the above does to the state of your soul in the eyes of God?

To obtain the answer, get out your Bible and read the four Gospels with a pad of paper and a pen or pencil next to you. Write down every time that Jesus chastises a person for a sexual act, including adultery. Are you having trouble finding any examples at all of Jesus expending even one word of chastisement regarding sexual misconduct or proclivities? Now, at the same time, write down how often Jesus condemns people for the words from their mouths, such as hypocrisy, false pride in their holiness, gossip and other problems of the tongue. Do you find that Jesus has provided plenty of examples of his irritation and condemnation? Would you feel comfortable bringing a sexually explicit photo that was secretly taken of someone to Jesus and telling him that you viewed the picture, kept a copy, told others about it, shared it with others, and found ways to harm the people in the photograph, and then insist that Jesus look at the photograph to see what an “adulterous sinner” is depicted there? Could you even bear to look in the eyes of Jesus with such a mission, and such a list of your own sins of pride and lack of charity? Did you perhaps think that God, and Jesus Christ, need spies to keep them abreast of the sexual doings of other people?

I do not understand how so many people that I know are totally obsessed with acts of intimacy between other people, especially adultery or homosexual acts, so that they involve themselves in the judging and propagating of this information, while at the same time think they have clean eyes, ears and hands in front of Jesus Christ. Do you remember what Jesus said about plucking out one’s eye if it leads on to sin? What kind of sin do the eyes lead one to commit? Looking at secretly taken intimate photographs of other people is one of them, just like being a voyeur (“peeping Tom”), or a pornography producer.

I know many of you will deny this, but I know that many of you value what St Paul says more than you value the totality of what Jesus said and did. So I invite you to do the same thing with all of the writings attributed to St Paul in the New Testament. Please write down for me (actually, for your own use, since I already know the answer) all of the times that St Paul condemns, chastises or even mentions a sexual impropriety. Then also list the number of times that St Paul condemns or warns against what is spoken, the deeds of the tongue, and no, he did not mean French kissing.

Where in the Bible, Old or New Testament, have any of you thought that you have the right to observe, judge, and propagate knowledge of other people’s sexual activities, whether “adulterous” or not, when you cannot show me Jesus 1) allocating any of his valuable ministry time on that subject and 2) Jesus praising those who ran to him or to others with tales of other sinners? I mean, I must have missed the part in the Gospel where Jesus offers a special place in heaven for the gossips that catch other people having nookie, who pass around scrolls depicting their acts and telling others about it, and then hurting the people who have been secretly spied upon? I have lots of Bibles and none of the translations seem to contain that part of the scripture. Am I missing some pages in my Bible? Just curious, because I have trouble finding the intimacy secret police and pornography producer reward section.

How ironic that many western Christians and seculars condemn the morality police of Islamic countries. Is that not funny when you think about it? The morality police are trying to enforce actual current behavior, not secretly spying on people for prurient purposes and star chambered judging of the intimates. And westerners do not mind flooding the media with visual pornography, exposing their children to increasingly sexualized images, yet if they “catch” someone “doing the dirty” they secretly photograph them and while proclaiming their righteousness on the one hand, get their “rocks off” through prurient possession, viewing and distribution of the material, or at least a good long gossiping description of it to equally self righteous people. It’s not too long ago that I blogged that this modern generation would care more about “what position” that Abraham and Sarah used to be intimate, rather than the miracle of her conception of Isaac. Those of you who are, as I am, disgusted at what I just wrote, please excuse me, for that is part of the great sadness of my life and the state of the world, that I have to dash people with cold water of such images to make them see how sick and depraved they have all become.

How happy people are when they “catch someone” being imprudent in intimacy, yet they often go the entire day without thinking once about fear of God. It is impossible not to think about someone else’s sex during the day (especially if you have electricity and hence TV, video, the Internet and other media), yet it is very possible and very common to never think once about God in a day.

You ought to be scared and you ought to be half wishing that you could have removed that eye of yours, rather than participated in the spreading of knowledge and visuals of someone else’s acts of intimacy, sinful or not.

One of the reasons that God is so protective of marriage and monogamous intimacy is because the focus is always on the bearing of children, children who need a stable home and to know who their parents are. How ironic that the abortion loving generation loves to sneak pictures of adultery or other sexual acts and then, hypocritically, cite scripture as their justification. As I pointed out, I would like to see where in the scripture God, or Jesus, spends any time condemning sinful intimacy itself, and encouraging vigilante and prurient monitoring of it as “justice” and “information gathering.” If you really understood the Bible the bulk of the concern is the spiritual harlot and the human adulterer who cheats on God. That is why the adulterer and harlot image is so predominate. God considers those believers who even dabble in idolatry (such as love of money) as being adulterers in their divine relationship with God. That is the kind of adultery that God knows humans will almost always lose their soul because of, not the nookie in the back of the car kind of adultery.

How many of you go to church, yet gossip and defame those you consider to be “sinners,” such as I described above in the photos of adultery example? How “in the model of Jesus Christ” is that?

How many of you go to church, yet receive daily briefings about activities and news that are provided by users of the secret and the occult?

How many of you go to church, yet believe that you are “privy” to “information” that makes you a participant in divine events (and thus a servant of false prophets?)

Woe, woe, woe, woe to this generation. I see no hope, really.

Important reflection about violence and St Paul

This is a reflection about St Paul that is particularly pertinent during the time when we commemorate the Lord’s suffering and death. Many sermons correctly point out, as the scripture relates, that while Jesus answered the questions of Pilate, he did not resist what would be his inevitable execution. Jesus himself explains that he could have summoned both earthly and heavenly forces to defend and free him, but as this is not his realm, but heaven is his true home and destination, he did not.

Well before the Passion and Crucifixion Jesus taught the Apostles, the disciples and all who attended his sermons and believed that his followers should turn the other cheek. Another time the Apostles wondered why Jesus did not send fire down upon a town that had rejected him. Jesus explained that he came to save souls, not to kill.

Now, you might at this time guess that I’m going to compare Jesus and what he taught to Saul, he who was the persecutor of Christians, before he was confronted by the resurrected Jesus, converted and became St. Paul. You would be wrong, as that is not where I am going with this reflection but, rather, to a far more important point. I am going to point out to you the dire, deadly consequences of not obeying Jesus in all matters.

Suppose that the Apostles and disciples listened to Jesus about passive resistance (to use a modern term) with one ear, but with the other ear succumbed to temptation to “fight back when attacked,” immediately after Jesus was crucified. That would be the attitude of modern society, not the Church, today. We have “enemy lists” and “preemptive strikes,” and we declare enemies of not only terrorists who are declared enemies but also those who “aid and harbor them.” Here is what would have happened.

Immediately after Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into heaven we had our first Christian martyr, Stephen, who was stoned as he forgave his murderers. A young man tended to the cloaks of the stoners and that was Saul. Saul then developed zeal, a murderous zeal, where he not only spied and reported on the disciples and their converts, those who Jesus and the Apostles had converted to Christianity, but he hunted them down in person in order to bring them to their deaths.

This, in fact, was what Saul was hastening to do on the road to Damascus, when the resurrected Jesus confronted him and threw him from his horse, blinding Saul with the light of his glorified body. But what if as soon as Stephen was stoned, the Apostles and other Christians had made “an enemies list?” What if they had recognized right away what a scourge Saul was to the early Christians, including themselves, and decided, as moderns glorify in real acts and in entertainment media, “take him out first?” What if the Christians had ignored Jesus in this one matter and had killed Saul?

If that thought terrifies you, it should.

Thank God on your hands and knees that the Apostles and disciples, and all the martyrs and early Christians, obeyed Jesus in all matters, most particularly in this one. If I want to give myself the horrors and make myself sick to my stomach, all I have to do is think of one stupid cowboy from modern times urging the Apostles after Stephen was killed to make an “enemies list” and conduct “preemptive strikes” in order to have a “justifiable defense” and “defend ourselves and our faith.”

If just one of the disciples had been of that mindset, to ignore Jesus in “just this one matter,” and had killed Saul before he became St. Paul, Christianity would not exist today.

It is not that St. Paul was so instrumental to the Christianity that I say this, though obviously he is the one who brought Christianity to the Gentiles and not only the Jews. It would be that through the action of one or a handful of people, those early Christians would have demonstrated their lack of worthiness and faithlessness to God, who had sent Jesus to be heard, believed and obeyed in ALL matters, not “most of them” with “exceptions cause it’s an emergency and ‘Jesus would understand.’” God would have allowed Christianity to die on the vine because disobeying Jesus within months of his resurrection would have indicated that the soil and the plants were not worthy.

When we say that God has a perfect plan, that is the truth, but the very people who say God has a perfect plan and seem to believe in God often think that they know better than God. This is the dire, extreme, and impossible to exaggerate peril of modern humans, both believers and non believers. While not a single one of the Apostles, disciples or early Christian converts, those of Jesus himself and the next few generations, were unfaithful to all that Jesus taught, including going to their death in non-resistance, can I say that about a single person living today? Do not people happily “cherry pick” what Jesus said and did, saying “Jesus would understand that these times are ‘different?’” People spy on each other’s supposed ‘transgressions,’ gossip, and target for malice those on their personal and clique “enemies list.” I know, for I have had a prominent place on the “enemy list” of those who supposedly believe in God and Jesus.

When I think of the people who have spied on me and thus misunderstood my actions, or inactions, and attributed judgmental “identities” to me (including the Harlot of Babylon, a crown I guess many Catholics have to bear), I think of how those people would have shot Saul right through the heart in “self defense,” thinking that “Jesus would understand.”

No, Jesus would not and does not “understand” such a mindset, and God will be severe in his judgment.

The next time you think that you have “secret knowledge” about who someone “really is” and whether they are “worthy in their faith or not,” imagine your hands on the trigger of a gun pointed at the head of Saul and you blowing his brains out in “self defense.”

1/3 "Spread the wealth" and what the Bible says

I am so very annoyed, as I have been all along, at the recent trend to try to justify socialism and "income distribution" or "spreading the wealth" schemes by misquoting the Bible. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that justifies ANY government program or economy policy to "spread the wealth" or be "Robin Hood."

I am going to author two tutorials on this subject today. They will demonstrate exactly how alms and charity were mandated in the Bible, including how Jesus availed himself of charity. Yes, rather than quoting what Jesus supposedly "said" about "spreading the wealth," people ought to be at least as educated as their grandparents (assuming they weren't socialists or Communists) who recalled very well the event in Jesus' ministry where he and the Apostles availed themselves of charity in the Biblically prescribed way.

Also, only a moron would read the Bible and think that charitable acts that are mandated there are in any way to be put in government hands. If you socialist leaning "Jesus quoters" want to "follow what he said," then the entire Bible places charitable giving and "income redistribution" in THE CHURCH'S HANDS. So keep it up, that's right, keep misquoting Jesus and the Bible to justify economic and governmental "policy," and you will find that you are arguing that the Church should take over all governmental "charitable and income redistribution" programs, since that is where that responsibility is given by God in the Bible.