Post on 09-May-2023
ACCEPT CORRECTIONS
Module 5—Workbook Revised for Ireland
Why the Catholic Church?
In a culture emphasizing autonomy and freedom, it is difficult to understand why we
need a Church, let alone, the Catholic Church. Can’t we just relate to God individually in our
own way? To make matters more confusing, this confusion is enhanced by priest scandals and
the imperfections of the Catholics we might know. This Module attempts to clarify and redress
these confusions in 4 parts:
1. Why Do We Need a Church (section 1)
2. Why the Catholic Church? (section 2)
3. The Major Benefits and Graces of the Catholic Church (section III)
4. Controversial Issues in the Church Today (section IV)
I.
Why Do We Need a Church?
As we saw in the first Module, God is present to every human being through the numinous
experience and the intuition of the Sacred, so it would seem that our most fundamental way of
relating to God would be a “one on one” relationship with Him in prayer. Though this is possible,
it is highly unusual in the real world. Most people throughout the world (84%) belong to a religious
community, and therefore, explicitize their initial relationship with God through a church, sharing
common belief, common ritual and tradition, and common worship.1 This is true for two major
reasons.
First, the numinous experience and the intuition of the Sacred -- though interiorly powerful
and mysterious -- are not explicit. They require spoken or written interpretation from parents and
religious authorities2 in order to be meaningful and motivational. The early church fathers
recognized this and held that the “inner word” (the numinous experience and the intuition of the
Sacred – God’s interior presence to us) had to be complemented by the “outer word” (the explicit,
articulated, self-revelation of God through religious authorities—e.g. prophets, within a
community). Conversely, the outer word would be “dry” – devoid of sacredness, mysteriousness,
fascination, and power – without the inner word. So it seems that God has created us to be fulfilled
in mind and heart by both His inner word and outer word in our hearts and through a church.
1 According to the 2010 comprehensive pew survey, 84% of the world’s population (5.8 billion out of 6.9 billion) is
religiously affiliated and belongs to a particular religious group or community. See Pew Research Center 2010 “The
Global Religious Landscape” https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
2 See the studies of children throughout the world by the Harvard psychologist Robert Coles in The Spiritual Life of
Children (Mariner Books 1991).
The second reason why religious community is so fundamental is that human beings are
interpersonal and communitarian by nature. From the moment we are born into the world, we are
in relationship with our parents and our extended families. Our initial sense of ourselves is not as
solitary and autonomous individuals, but rather as beloved and familial – that is, in relationship. It
is difficult to imagine that God did not intend this, and so would provide a means to mediate His
initial relationship with us through a community, particularly our families and churches.
The communitarian dimension of religion is not restricted to the exterior domain that is, to
the world outside of us. It seems that God brings a sense of religious community into our interior
lives through his presence to our souls. In so doing, he gives us a sense of belonging to a spiritual
family and community as a vital part of his presence to us.
The Christian poet John Donne expressed his intuitive awareness of this “spiritual
relationship with humanity” in a famous poem:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod [a little clump of dirt] be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory [a whole peninsula] were.
As well as if a manor [mansion] of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the [funeral] bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.3
Donne expresses a profound awareness that his relationship with God ties Him into the
whole of humanity. We are all inter-involved with one another (which is mutually enhancing)
within a spiritual fabric that unites us. Human beings are not only interpersonal, they are
transcendentally and cosmically interrelated – everyone is intertwined with everyone else in their
relationship with God. If Donne’s intuition is correct, then the enlightenment ideal of human
autonomy (radical individuality) is not only false, but a gross underestimation of the significance
and value of the human community and every human being.
Who are we then? We are an integral part of a unity of humanity through God whose lives
are tied up with one another such that we can contribute to or diminish the community’s sense of
faith, hope, love and goodness through our words and actions. If this is the case, then we are not
called only to an individual relationship with an interpersonal God, but also to a relationship with
the whole of humanity through that God. We are called not only to individual prayer but to
religious community guided by God’s revelation and inspired by sacred worship. Therefore,
church community is indispensable to our spiritual nature, fulfillment, and destiny.
3 See John Donne “No Man is an Island” in Scottish Poetry Library.
https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/no-man-is-an-island/
Beyond the need for spiritual community (both interiorly and exteriorly) there are four
other reasons we need church to actualize our true dignity and destiny:
1. A source of Revelation to inform us who God is (i.e., His personal identity) so
we can know Him and enter into a relationship with Him
2. A source of teaching to interpret God’s revelation in light of the increasing
complexification of life.
3. A form of sacred ritual, worship, and symbol to bring us closer to God.
4. A source of spiritual teaching and guidance to help us in our relationship with
God through prayer.
These four dimensions of religion (revelation, worship, teaching and prayer) are not self-
evident. If we just sit in our rooms, we are unlikely to know what God really wants of us, where
He is leading us, how He is interacting with us, and therefore, how to live, pray, and worship
according to His will, which will lead to our spiritual growth and salvation from sin and death.
How then should we pray? What should we pray for? How do we live in accordance with the fruit
of our prayer? Without some form of outward revelation from God and authoritative teaching, we
are truly lost in a haze of everything. Furthermore, we would miss out on the experience of praying
to God with brothers and sisters who share our awareness and excitement for God and our
reverence for His supreme love, goodness and holiness. This would relegate us to the very narrow
world of solitary thoughts in our own minds. Yes, we must make an effort to get out of the house
and to join the community, but we will be the better for it, because we will grow closer to God
through the community, closer to the community through God and closer to the life and salvation
to which He is calling us.
Let’s explore more deeply these essential reasons for belonging to a church. As noted
above, our interior experience of God (e.g., the Numinous experience) lacks precise articulation,
and so we need God’s self-revelation to tell us who He is. We may be able to know that God exists
and what He is from logical reasoning and scientific inference (see Modules 2 and 3), but we
cannot know God’s inner mind and heart through these methods, and therefore the true nature of
His love and care for us. This knowledge of God’s heart must come from God Himself, who makes
this revelation accessible to us through a prophet or priest, and ultimately through the incarnation
of His only begotten Son. As we have seen, Jesus Christ claimed to be the exclusive Son of the
Father and the complete expression of God in both word and action, particularly in His total self-
sacrifice, His Glorious Resurrection, the Gift of the Holy spirit (the power of God Himself), and
miracles by His own authority.
No divine revelation is completely self-evident, and so we need a divinely designated
authority to interpret it—an authority that is given the grace and insight to know the heart of God—
a church with inspired leadership. We will examine the question of how to discern among various
churches’ claims to have this divine authority in the next section. For the moment, suffice it to say
that without a definitive authority to interpret divine revelation, we would have virtually no way
of knowing how to enter into a relationship with God, what His plan is for us, how to best enter
into that plan, and what He expects from us. Without divinely revealed truth and an inspired
interpretation of that truth through a church, we would be clueless about how to proceed in a
spiritual life. Therefore, the claim that we can carry out a spiritual life on our own without a church
seems wholly unrealistic. How can we carry out a spiritual life without knowing God beyond our
Numinous experience? We might be able to intuitively know that we should be reverent and
respectful towards God, but beyond that, we have little hope of probing more deeply into the
mystery we sense in the Numinous experience and the unique unrestricted, uncaused, intelligent
creator we can infer from science and logic. If God does not show us who He is and does not give
us a means to definitively interpret His revelation (through a churches’ leadership) we cannot
proceed very far in prayer.
God does not disappoint. He has revealed Himself in all major religions through seven
major characteristics elucidated by Friedrich Heiler: 1. The transcendent, the holy, the divine, the
Other is real, 2. The transcendent reality is immanent in human awareness, 3. This transcendent
reality is the highest truth, highest good, and highest beauty, 4. This transcendent reality is loving
and compassionate – and seeks to reveal its love to human beings, 5. The way to God requires
prayer, ethical self-discipline, purgation of self-centeredness, asceticism, and redressing of
offenses, 6. The way to God also includes service and responsibility to people and 7. The highest
way to eternal bliss in the transcendent reality is through love.4
Though most religions share these characteristics, they interpret them very differently—
they define love, attribute it to God and rank it among other virtues quite distinctly. As we have
seen, Christianity uniquely defines love in the Beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-11), attributes love to the triune
God unconditionally and interpersonally (Lk. 15:11-32 and Jn. 15), and ranks love as highest
among all virtues and commandments (Mk. 12:28-31). Inasmuch as Jesus is the fullness of God’s
self-revelation (as the Divine Son manifest in His Glorious Resurrection, miraculous power, self-
revelation, gift of the Spirit and self-sacrificial love on the Cross), we should give serious
consideration to following Jesus’ words and actions which we may reasonably infer come from
God Himself.
This revelation has changed the course of history and the world. The Christian church
created such large missions to help the needy, cure the sick, and educate all classes of people, it
ultimately undermined the barbarity, social stratification, and slavery of Rome.5 Throughout its
history, the Catholic Church has been the largest public educational system, healthcare system,
and public welfare system in the world. It remains so today:
● With respect to public education the church provides services in 43,800 secondary schools
and 95,200 primary schools.6
4 See Friedrich Heiler. 1959. “The History of Religions as a Preparation for the Cooperation of Religions.” In The
History of Religions. Ed. by Mircea Eliade and J. Kitagawa. (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press). PP 142-144 5 See Helmut Koester 1998 “The Great Appeal: What did Christianity offer its believers that made it worth social
estrangement, hostility from neighbors, and possible persecution?”
See also Christopher Dawson 1965 “The Formation of Christendom” (New York: Sheed & Ward) pp 111-137
6 See “Preparing for the year of creation” in Vermont Catholic
http://www.onlinedigeditions.com/publication/index.php?i=365491&m=&l=&p=1&pre=&ver=html5#{%22page%2
2:74,%22issue_id%22:365491}
● With respect to healthcare, the Church oversees 26% of all worldwide healthcare facilities
and hospitals.7
● With respect to public welfare, the Church provides services in 15,722 Homes for the
elderly, chronically ill and disabled, 9,552 orphanages, 13,897 Marriage Counseling
Centers, 11,758 Nurseries—not including any healthcare facilities.8
Inasmuch as these institutions arising out of the teaching of Jesus have literally transformed history
and the world, we should seriously consider the truth and efficacy of Jesus’ revelation about the
unconditional love of God, the definition of love (as highest commandment), and His foundation
of the Catholic Church on these principles.
Let us now return to the question of why we need a church? Without a Church, we lack
understanding, direction, mutual support, and fulfillment in our faith on four levels:
1. Without Divine Revelation manifest through authoritative religious figures we are lost
within a myriad of untested ideas about God and salvation, and are therefore left clueless
about how to understand and practice our faith.
2. Without a faith community to support us, we consign ourselves to our own interior
religious consciousness devoid of interpersonal relationships, communal support, and
accountability to an authority beyond ourselves. This deprives our faith of the care, insight,
and help of others.
3. Without a rite of worship (e.g., the mass), we relegate our prayer to merely private,
subjective expressions devoid of the prayers, rituals, and common beliefs given to us by
divine revelation. This is particularly evident in Christianity which has a specified ritual
to receive the very essence and heart—Body and Blood—of Jesus to transform and help
us (MK 14:22-24 & MT 26:26-28) as well as a ritual originating with Jesus Himself for
the forgiveness and wiping away (absolution) of sin (JN 20:21).
4. Without a church’s moral teaching we are left to our own unformed consciences for moral
guidance in a complex world with literally thousands of divergent moral prescriptions,
making us vulnerable to bad influences from others, our own self-deceit and tendency
towards sin, and evil spiritual forces.
Numerous studies associate an absence of religious/spiritual affiliation with what might be called
“Spiritual emptiness, loneliness, anxiety, and alienation”. A plausible explanation of these
findings is that absent a sense of God in our lives and in the lives of a community around
us we tend to feel a profound sense of being alone in the cosmos and “not at home” with
7 Catholic News Agency 2019 “Catholic hospitals comprise one quarter of world’s healthcare, council reports”
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic_hospitals_represent_26_percent_of_worlds_health_facilities_r
eports_pontifical_council
8 See Vatican 2018 “Catholic Church Statistics” Agenzia Fides
http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/Dossier_Statistics_2018_FIDES_ENG.pdf
the Divine.9 And so religious/spiritual affiliation is associated with positive mental health
and reduced anxiety and depression..10 These studies lend support to the view that without
religious/spiritual affiliation in a church-type community we tend to feel unfulfilled at a
deep, spiritual level.
The above observations give an insight into how God created us and the reason He created
us—to be ultimately fulfilled by His perfect truth, love, goodness, beauty and home through a
personal relationship with Him arising out of His self-revelation to us—a self-revelation coming
through a church community. We can be sure that this is what God wants for us and from us,
because without a church community we have so little knowledge of His heart and inner being, so
little sense of His will for us in our personal, spiritual, and moral lives, so little accountability to
an authority beyond ourselves, so little opportunity for interpersonal support for our faith, and so
little certainty about divine forgiveness and expiation, all of which restrict our awareness and
receptivity to our ultimate fulfillment by Him. We can infer from the above that God truly desires
us to be committed to a faith community, adhere to its revealed teachings, and worship Him with
others in it so that the community may preserve the truth, support our faith, call us to moral
responsibility, mediate grace, provide the means for us to serve others, and through all this, to help
us toward eternal salvation. Why else would God have created us with a deep spiritual longing for
interpersonal communion with God and with others?
What do you think? Have you found yourself resisting church participation because of
apathy, doubts, or laxity? Has this resulted in a decline in your spiritual life—a decline in prayer,
relationship with God, religious fulfillment, and virtue? Has this decline led to feelings of spiritual
emptiness, loneliness, alienation, anxiety, or depression? Or to feelings of being unfulfilled,
unsupported, and unguided? If so, you may want to seriously consider joining a church community
and regularly attending its services.
If you are bothered by doubts, you will want to investigate the logical, scientific,
experiential, and historical evidence for God, the soul, and Jesus in Modules 1-4—and if you need
peer-reviewed scientific and philosophical articles, it would behoove you to read Volumes 1
through 4 of the Credible Catholic Big Book. Remember—getting answers to these questions is
not enough. The above feelings of spiritual emptiness, anxiety, loneliness, and alienation will not
go away with a simple affirmation of God’s existence. True spiritual fulfillment requires
relationship, both with God and with others. And of course we can have a full relationship with
God only if we know his true identity, something we can’t know unless he reveals or communicates
9 See Mircea Eliade’s description of what happens to human beings who are naturally religious (homo religiosus)
when they do not affiliate with a church community bringing an authoritative revelation about the sacred and the
divine. See Mircea Eliade 1959 The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Inc)
pp 163-211
10 See, e.g., Harold Koenig, “Research on Religion, Spirituality and Mental Health: a Review,” Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry (2009); Raphael Bonelli et. al., “Religious and Spiritual Factors in Depression: Review and Integration of
the Research,” Depression and Research Treatment (2012); Stefano Lassi and Daniele Mugnaini, “Role of Religion
and Spirituality on Mental Health and Resilience: There is Enough Evidence,” International Journal of Emergency
Mental Health and Human Resilience (2015); Harold Koenig, “Religion, Spirituality, and Health: a Review and
Update,” Advances in Mind-Body Medicine (2015); and Corina Ronenberg et. al., “The Protective Effects of
Religiosity on Depression: A 2-Year Prospective Study,” The Gerontologist (2016)
himself to us. For all these reasons true spiritual fulfillment occurs within a church community
guided by divine revelation. When you make the commitment to participate in a church which
faithfully teaches God’s self-revelation, you will probably notice that your former loneliness and
anxiety is replaced by a sense of ultimate peace, fulfillment, and home, coming from a source
beyond yourself. If you are a Catholic, you will find great solace in renewing your faith, going to
the sacrament of reconciliation, and receiving the Holy Eucharist at Mass on a regular basis.
This last statement gives rise to an important question—if participation in a church which
faithfully teaches the fullness of God’s self-revelation can give a sense of ultimate peace,
fulfillment, and home, and can support, inform, and guide our relationship with God, we will want
to be as certain as possible about the qualifications of the church we choose to do this. In the next
section, we will give some reasons why the Catholic Church is eminently qualified to carry out
this vital role. In the previous Module (#4), we discussed the reasons for considering Jesus to be
the Son of God who came into our midst to reveal His unconditional love and path to salvation.
Inasmuch as this evidence supports reasonable and responsible belief in Jesus as God’s definitive
self-revelation, then the answer to our question comes down to one simple point—what Church
did Jesus Himself initiate? If there is sound historical evidence that Jesus initiated the Catholic
Church (built on the foundation of St. Peter and his successors, i.e., the various popes throughout
history) and that He is still present in that church until the end of time, then we have significant
reasonable grounds for believing that the Catholic Church is the definitive interpreter of Jesus’
teachings and actions, and the definitive means for the actualization of His Saving Grace—
precisely as He ordained it. If this is the case, then the best way to ultimate and eternal truth, love,
goodness, beauty, and home lies not only in Jesus’ words, actions, and spirit, but also in the
Catholic Churches’ interpretation of His teachings, actualization of His sacramental Grace, and
it’s faith community animated by His Spirit of wisdom and love. This is the subject of the next
section.
II.
Why the Catholic Church?
There are many reasons why we would want to become members of the Catholic Church
(discussed below in section III), the most important of which is the fact that Jesus established it.
Though the New Testament states plainly that Jesus commissioned Peter to be the
foundation rock (Mt 16:17-19) and the chief shepherd of the Church (Jn 21:15-17), some
protestant scholars have questioned whether this was Jesus’ intention or an interpretation of the
first century church. Furthermore, some have questioned whether Jesus’ commission applied not
only to Peter, but also to his successors. A brief analysis of these passages, using the work of
both protestant scholars—such as W.D. Davies (Congregationalist), Dale Allison (Presbyterian),
Joachim Jeremias (Lutheran) as well as Catholic scholars—such as John L. McKenzie, Raymond
Brown, and Benedict Viviano —reveals that it is highly likely that Peter’s commission originated
with Jesus and that it does apply to Peter’s successors.
Why is the primacy of Peter’s office so important? As implied above, scriptural
interpretation is not a simple matter – it is formed and written through the lens of times, places,
and cultures quite different from our own. When scripture passages appear to conflict with one
another, the faithful can be caught in confusion, and seriously deceived. This means that there
will have to be some kind of teaching authority within the Church. If there were not, the Church
community would be divided into factions, each having different interpretations of the same
basic books of scripture. Such factions arose even in the Early Church and especially after the
Reformation movement. Over the last 500 years since the Reformation, 35,496 Protestant
churches have sprung up.11 This is attributable almost solely to the lack of a definitive teaching
authority within Protestant churches whose leaders had no basis to determine which scriptural
interpretation was correct. Did Jesus anticipate the possibility of such divisions, and establish a
church with a definitive teaching authority precisely to avoid this crisis of truth and unity? This
section takes up the evidence for Jesus’ intention to establish a teaching authority through Peter
and his successors and to build one and only one Church on the basis of that teaching authority—
the Catholic Church.
II.A
Jesus as the Universal Temple
Jesus was no stranger to the dangers of religious division. He lived at a time when
Judaism was divided and even fragmented into many parties and schools—Sadducees, Pharisees,
Essenes, Zealots, and many other sub-factions and extremes. But Jesus intended to make His
body the mystical source and life of a universal Church (Jn. 2:21). This would not be a “temple
created by human hands” (Jn. 2: 19)—situated in a particular place like Jerusalem but a spiritual
temple made by God for everyone everywhere. Jesus knew He would have to leave His
disciples, but intended to give them the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22), which He gave in a unique way
on the birth-event of the Church at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), a gift that was to guide them and their
successors to “Go and make disciples of every nation” (Mt.28:19-20).
In view of the above, it is highly likely that Jesus intended to start a church that would
become a universal, spiritual temple in his own risen body, and that he foresaw the very real
possibility of factioning within that church if it did not have a definitive teaching authority. This
explains why Jesus invested primary teaching authority in Peter and his successors (Mt. 16:17-
19—discussed below in Section II.D.).
II.B
Other Evidence of Jesus’ Intention to Start a Church
In addition to Jesus’ proclamation of being the Universal Temple and His commissioning
of Peter in both Matthew (16:17-19) and John (21:15-17), Jesus recruited apostles, gave them
power to forgive sins, teach in his name, preach the good news that the Kingdom of God has
begun in Jesus, gather people to Jesus, heal, and expel demons (Mt 10:1-15, Lk 5:1-11, Lk 9:2,
Jn 20:23, Mk 16:15). Furthermore, he appointed additional disciples, such as the seventy-two
disciples, giving them similar powers of healing and preaching (Lk 10:1-24).
Prior to his final journey to Jerusalem, Jesus’ instructions to both the apostles and
disciples is for missionary purposes, but as he approaches the time for his final trip to Jerusalem,
11 See the Association of Religious Archives, 2009-2010 “Sources for Religious Congregations & Membership
Data” http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/RCMS_Notes.asp
he speaks solely to the apostles. In these instructions, he set up the structure of His Church
(Mt.16:17-19 & 18:17-19), gave all the apostles special powers in that Church (Mt 18:18),
instructions for how to run the Church (Mt 18:17-19), and appointed Peter (and implicitly his
successors) as supreme teaching and juridical authority to govern that Church (Mt. 16:17-19 &
Jn 21:15-17).
Notice that Jesus distinguished these groups and ranked them according to three levels:
1. Peter and his successors – popes (the highest level),
2. The other apostles and their successors – bishops (the second level),
3. Additional disciples who were not apostles—such as the 72 (the third level).
He gave powers to the higher levels of authority not given to the lower levels. For example, Peter
was given powers not given to the lower two levels -- to be the foundation of the Church with the
keys to the Kingdom of Heaven – tantamount to the highest authority of Prime Minister. The
apostles were given powers not given to non-apostolic disciples -- the power to bind and loose
(to teach and govern with authority and to mitigate disputes). All three groups were given the
power to preach the word, heal the sick, and expel demons.
This three-level structure with its special powers and instructions (for higher levels) is
virtually unintelligible if Jesus had not been committed to initiating a structured hierarchical
Church that would last beyond His Passion and Resurrection. The same holds true for His gift of
the Holy Spirit to the apostles specifically for the governance of the Church (Jn 16).
It would be mistake to think that Jesus began merely a hierarchical Church, composed
only of priests and Bishops. The Church he founded has different levels of offices, but these
offices are to serve the wider people of the Church through celebration of the sacraments, liturgy,
preaching, and teaching. This is why the most recent Church Council, called Vatican II (1965),
insisted on describing the Church as the “people of God”. The Church is everyone who confesses
Jesus as Lord and who seeks to unite with Jesus through immersing their heart and mind in His
word and life, especially his sacramental life. So you, and every other faithful Catholic, are as
much part of the Church as any Bishop or Pope. And you too have a wonderful calling to build
up the Church and bring people to Jesus in order that they will unite with his divine, eternal life
and thus be saved from sin and death. There is no greater love than to help people grow towards
eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus himself used many images that we can apply to the
Church as the people of God: family (Mk 10:24, Lk: 1511-32), workers (Mt 9: 35-38, 20: 1-16),
and guests at a feast (Mt 22: 1-14, Lk 14: 15-24). It is noteworthy that throughout Jesus’ ministry
he gathered people together, in table fellowship and in crowds, to be his disciples and to follow
him towards His father in heaven. Already in Jesus’ ministry we see him gathering a people of
God, a Church.
A further question arises: did Jesus think that the Church could last for multiple
generations – far beyond His lifetime? The evidence indicates that He certainly believed in the
possibility of such a multi-generational church and even the likelihood of it (see below).
II.C
Did Jesus Think the Church would endure for multiple generations beyond the Apostles?
Since Jesus instructed his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world (Mt. 28:19-
20 and Mk. 13:10), it would seem he intended his church to last longer than just one generation.
After all, how could His small band of apostles and disciples have preached the Gospel to all
nations in one or two generations? Not only did Jesus instruct his disciples to preach the Gospel,
which means “good news” about the Kingdom of God, to all nations, he also promised that he
would be with them “always, to the very end of the age” (Mt 28:20). It is likely that this promise
indicates that the Church was to last a very long time indeed, since both “always” and “the very
end of the age” strongly suggest a period of time not constrained by ordinary human generations.
Furthermore, in every discourse about the end of the world (in all four Gospels), Jesus
speaks of two sets of tribulations – one concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem, and a later
one concerned with the end of the world. He indicated that there would be many signs and
apocalyptic events that would occur between the two tribulations, again implying more than one
or two generations. Though Jesus does not specify the precise time of the second tribulation, he
states that, “about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but
only the Father” (Mk. 13:32). The historicity of this passage is very likely because of the
criterion of “embarrassment.” Why would Mark or the Early Church have preserved this
tradition, which restricts Jesus’ (the incarnate Son’s) knowledge of future events, if it were not
true? In light of this, it is highly likely that Jesus did foresee at least the possibility that the
Church would last for many generations. Inasmuch as he did anticipate this (as well as the
likelihood of factioning without a definitive authority to interpret his words), it is likely that he
intended to give definitive teaching and juridical authority not only to Peter, but also to his
successors for one or more generations. If Jesus saw the need to have an ultimate teaching and
juridical authority in Peter to prevent divisions in Peter’s generation, why would he have allowed
all subsequent generations to fall victim to factioning and disunity? In view of this, it is quite
likely that Jesus intended to vest ultimate juridical authority in all of Peter’s successors. We will
obtain further confirmation of this in the commissioning passage itself.
II.D
The Historicity of Matthew’s Account of Jesus’ Commissioning of Peter (Mt. 16:17-19)
Let’s take a look at the actual text where Jesus commissions Peter as the head of his
church: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
but my heavenly Father. And I tell you that you are Peter, [Petros] and on this rock [petra] I will
build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17-20).
It might seem surprising that a text so significant to the future of the church is only found
in one gospel; however, Matthew’s text here appears to be quoting an earlier Aramaic account
that was familiar to and referenced by St. Paul. (We’ll look at that reference in a moment). How
do we know this was an early, well-known Aramaic tradition? Matthew’s gospel was written in
Greek, but this passage contains many idiomatic expressions used in Aramaic (the language
Jesus used) that were likely found in his original Aramaic version, for example:
● “Blessed are you”, to express Peter’s inspired awareness of Jesus as Messiah. 12
● “Simone, bar Jonah”, retaining the Aramaic version of Peter’s original name and
ancestry.13
● “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you”, where “flesh & blood” refers to a
human being.14
The most significant Aramaic expression occurs when Jesus renames Peter: “You are Cephas,
and on this Cephas (Rock), I will build my church.” This doesn’t work well in the Greek
translation, where rock is a feminine word-“petra”-which doesn’t perfectly match Peter’s
masculine name “Petros”.15
The renaming of Peter also points to Jesus as the author of this primitive Aramaic
tradition, because renaming requires a very high authority like Jesus to rename a person in
Semitic culture, where the name chosen by the parents is almost sacrosanct.16 Jesus was the only
authority in Peter’s life who would have been able to do that.17
As mentioned above, this early Aramaic tradition was also referenced by St. Paul (Gal
1:16-2:10). Paul’s account of his own commissioning as an apostle in Galatians 1 and 2 has
several parallels to Peter’s commissioning by Christ. For instance, in connecting his
commissioning with Peter’s commission, Paul who generally uses Peter’s Aramaic name
“Cephas”—(see for example Gal 1:8 & 2:9) uses the Greek translation of Peter’s name “Petros”
twice in Gal 2:7 and 2:8. This is the only time Paul translates “Cephas” into the Greek “Petros”
in all his writings.18 Moreover, St. Paul uses the same Aramaic expression as Matthew — “flesh
and blood”—to refer to “human being” (Gal 1:16) which Jesus used in Peter’s commissioning.
This is the only time St. Paul uses this expression in all his New Testament letters.19 Is it merely
a coincidence that Paul’s unique use of these terms which precisely parallels Matthew’s
commissioning, is used in a passage referring to Paul’s own commissioning?20 (See The Big
Book, Volume Six, Chapter Two, for even more parallels between Paul’s commissioning in
Galatians and Peter’s commissioning in Mathew). These parallels indicate that Matthew’s
commissioning account was not unique to him, but was also likely known by St. Paul.
Furthermore, the Aramaic background of both passages (in Matthew and Galatians) indicates a
12 See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison 1991. International Critical Commentary Volume 2 Matthew 8-18 (New
York: T& T Clark Ltd.) pp 622-624
13 Ibid
14 Ibid
15 For a more complete study of the Aramaic background to both Mt. 16:17-19 and Galatians 1 and 2, see W. D.
Davies and Dale C. Allison 1991 Volume 2 pp 626-629.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid
18 See Ibid p 610
19 Ibid pp 610-611
20 Ibid.
very early origin in Jerusalem well before the writing of Paul’s letter. As we shall see, there are
several textual and phrasing indications that this Aramaic version goes back to Jesus himself.
Beyond Matthew’s account of the commissioning (paralleled in St. Paul), St. John gives
us yet another Gospel passage of Peter’s exclusive commissioning to be chief shepherd of the
Church by Jesus:
“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do
you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.”
He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do
you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him,
“Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said
to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed
my sheep” (Jn. 21:15-17).
“Feeding the sheep” is a metaphorical reference to “teaching the Church” and “tending
the sheep,” a reference to “guiding the Church.” The significance of this teaching and guiding
power will be discussed below in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ commissioning of Peter. The fact
that Peter is the sole apostle to be given this three-fold commission in John’s Gospel, that it
contains the phrase, “more than these” (Jn 21:15), and makes metaphorical reference to teaching
and juridical authority shows that Jesus gave Peter the position of head teacher and guider of the
Church.
Though the Gospel of Luke does not mention commissioning, Luke’s account of the
Early Church (in the Acts of the Apostles) frequently illustrates Peter’s central role in the church:
it sets Peter in a central place (in Acts 1-15), makes him spokesman of the universal church at the
Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-11), and implies his superiority to Paul (Acts 15:1-2, 6-11).
Scripture scholars have noted many other indications of Peter’s supremacy over Paul,
James, and the other apostles in the Acts of the Apostles.21 How could Peter have assumed such
supremacy over the entire Church community without explicit appointment from Jesus himself?
The early community was quite sensitive to the need for divine authority (such as Jesus) to
bestow on any individual the authority to definitively interpret Jesus’ words and intention. What
other divine authority besides Jesus would have done this to the early Church’s satisfaction?
If Peter had not received this special commissioning authority, we would have expected
his authority to be hotly disputed in the Acts of the Apostles and in the other writings and history
of the Early Church. Instead, we find this authority acknowledged consistently, not only in
Matthew, John and the Acts of the Apostles, but also in the writings of Popes and Bishops in the
Early Church (See section II.F below).
Did Jesus’ Commission of Peter include His Successors? We mentioned above that, just
from a logistics standpoint, it wouldn’t make sense for Jesus to establish a guiding and
stabilizing authority if the Church would lose this authority once the apostles were dead. But we
21 See for example John L. McKenzie 1965, Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Macmillan Publishing), pp 663-
664.
can also discern clues in the words Jesus used to commission Peter that indicate Jesus’ intention
to establish an office of supreme authority that would be granted to Peter as well as his
successors. Let’s look at these significant words:
● “Rock”— A name in First Century Jewish thought represents the core identity of a person
as well as his purpose in life. Thus, the renaming of Simon as “Cephas” (which is unique
to Peter) indicates that his purpose is to be the foundation rock of Jesus’ Church and the
foundational leader of the new people of God.
● “My Church”— Just as Jesus promised to replace the localized temple of Jerusalem with
the new universal, spiritual temple, Jesus uses the future tense “I will build my church” to
describe the universal church he will establish.
● “The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against [my Church]”— This expression has an
obvious ring of permanence, which suggests that the Church structure founded on Peter
may well endure beyond him.
● Authority to “Bind and Loose”—In first century Judaism, binding and loosing were terms
for a rabbi’s authority to make a binding judgment on matters of faith and practice as well
as the power to excommunicate. Viviano describes this power as follows:
God shall bind and loose what Peter binds and looses. This verse gives enormous
authority to Peter. What is the nature of this authority? Binding and loosing are
rabbinic technical terms that can refer to binding the devil in exorcism, to the
juridical acts of excommunication and of definitive decision making (a form of
teaching through legislation, policy setting).22
Though Jesus gives the power to bind and loose to the other apostles (see Mt 18:18), he
gives it to Peter definitively and absolutely by combining it with “the keys to the kingdom of
heaven” (see below). He does not do this for the other Apostles in Mt 18:18. What does the
expression “the keys to the Kingdom” mean? This phrase parallels an Old Testament moment
when the prophet Isaiah announces that God has appointed a new prime minister for Israel,
saying, “I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall
shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open” (see Isaiah 22:18-22). The term “keys” in this and
other political/ecclesiastical contexts indicates the office of prime minister—the highest office
under the king himself.23 Notice the close parallel between Isaiah’s words, “he shall open, and
none shall shut, he shall shut, and none shall open,” and Jesus’ words, “whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In
view of the fact that Jesus was quite familiar with the scrolls of Isaiah, it is very likely that he
had this passage in mind in his commission to Peter. If so, it is quite likely that he is initiating a
“highest office” in the Church. Like the office of prime minister, Peter is second only to the king
(Jesus) himself. Notice that Jesus is giving the office (“the keys”) to Peter as if the office already
exists (by Jesus’ own authority). If the office exists independently of Peter, and is given to Peter,
then it can exist after Peter to be given to his successors.24 The office of supreme authority that
22 Benedict Viviano 1990 “The Gospel According to Matthew” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall) p. 630.
23 For other similar uses of “keys” in Old Testament political contexts, see Timothy Gray 2016, Peter – Keys to
Following Jesus (San Francisco: Ignatius and Augustine Institute) pp. 70-76.
24 Ibid.
Jesus gave to Peter goes beyond any earthly political office. Through it, Jesus bestows his own
divine authority—to bind in heaven and to lose in heaven. This power is so extraordinary that it
must have originated with Jesus himself, otherwise it would have been seriously disputed by the
other apostles and leaders in the Early Church.
Would Jesus have initiated an office having a supreme divine authority on earth to bind
and loose in his name for multiple generations? After all how would Jesus have known that the
successors to Peter would have been as loyal and spiritually devoted as Peter? In his human
nature, Jesus may not have known about the qualifications of everyone of Peter’s potential
successors. However, he was very well aware that the Holy Spirit would be able to communicate
his and the Father’s will to subsequent generations of Church leaders who would be able to
appoint a new successor to Peter through a congregation or council. This is precisely why he is
able to guarantee to Peter that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against His
Church.” If Jesus were not certain that the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter’s successors and
the collected gathering of church leaders would be able to vouchsafe the Church and definitively
inspire the successors of Peter, his promise would have been virtually unintelligible.
Can we be sure that Peter’s commissioning in Matthew’s Gospel really goes back to
Jesus himself? We can be reasonably sure for five reasons. First, as we have said, this
commissioning passage was originally written in Aramaic (Jesus’ language) and was known not
only by Matthew, but by Paul. Secondly, there are several indications in the passage that reflect
Jesus’ unique style, such as, the use of the emphatic ego. The use of this expression, “I say to
you” (Mt. 16:18)25 where the unnecessary first person pronoun “I” (“ego”) is used with “say”
(“lego”) is almost exclusive to Jesus, according to Jeremias.26 Furthermore, the use of “pater
mou” (an Abba substitute) in Mt. 16:17 is also virtually unique to Jesus.27 These two phrases
(virtually unique to Jesus) occurring within an Aramaic passage strongly indicate that Jesus was
its origin. Thirdly, as indicated earlier, renaming an individual is reserved to someone of
exceedingly high authority. There is no higher authority in Peter’s life than Jesus. Fourthly, there
are several other indications of the supremacy of Petrine authority in the New Testament, such as
the triple commissioning in John’s Gospel and Peter’s central role in the Acts of the Apostles.
These passages confirm Jesus as the source of Petrine supremacy. Fifthly, Peter’s supreme
authority would have been continually contested by Early Church Leaders if it had not been
well-known to have originated with Jesus.
25 “kagō de soi legō” (“and I say to you”). In Greek, the verb already has the subject in it, and therefore does not
need a pronoun, such as “I.” This usage is highly unusual and almost exclusive to Jesus in New Testament and
Intertestamental literature. See Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology – Volume I (London: SCM Press) pp
252-254.
26 Jeremias indicates that Jesus’ virtually exclusive use of the emphatic ego is used as a solemn command to expel
demons, make modifications to the law, to make a new law, and to mission His disciples. This expression translates
Jesus’ unique Aramaic expression, “Amen, I say to you.” See Ibid pp 252-254.
27 Jeremias notes in this regard, “…in the literature of Palestinian Judaism no evidence has yet been found of “my
Father” being used by an individual as an address to God…. It is quite unusual that Jesus should have addressed God
as “my Father”; it is even more so that he should have used the Aramaic form “Abba.” Ibid p 64.
Though a few rare references of “pater mou” and “Abba” have been found since Jeremias’ claim, it is still
exceedingly rare and is therefore a good indicator of the “Ipsissima Verba” (“the very words of Jesus”).
In light of these five reasons, it is highly likely that the commissioning of Peter in
Matthew’s Gospel originated with Jesus. Therefore, it is also highly likely that the office of
supreme teaching and juridical authority bestowed upon Peter -- and implicitly upon his
successors -- also originated with Jesus.
II.E
Peter in the Acts of the Apostles and at the Council of Jerusalem
Peter plays a central role in the Acts of the Apostles (Chapters 1-15). If he did not have
supreme authority, the roles he played in the Early Church would be inexplicable. For example,
he establishes the succession of the apostles by proposing the election of a successor to the
apostle Judas (Acts 1:15-22), he is the spokesman for the Church at Pentecost (the birth event of
the Church) and afterwards (Acts 1:15), he makes authoritative decisions like expanding the
Church by preaching to Gentiles as well as Jews (Acts 10:44ff, 11:1ff, 15:6-12). The most
explicit manifestation of Peter’s supreme office is found at the Council of Jerusalem—the first
Council of the Church in around 50 AD (Acts 15:1-12). Many church leaders, including Paul,
James, other apostles, Barnabas and elders were present. Paul and Barnabas came from the
Gentile lands to Jerusalem to ask the apostles to resolve the controversial question of whether
new Gentile converts to the Church were required to follow Jewish law. It was Peter who first
responded to the inquiry from Paul and others, and did so by his own authority inspired by the
Holy Spirit, assuring his audience that the Lord had made the decision – not appealing to Moses,
the prophets, or any other human authority:
After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers,
you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be
the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and
become believers… Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing
on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been
able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace
of the Lord Jesus, just as they will (Acts 15: 7-11).
When Peter proclaims his decision (by decree), the assembly falls silent, meaning that
Peter’s word put an end to all debate and discussion—it was definitive for the whole Church. By
contrast, the apostle James has authority only over Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem Church.
He does not play a universal role as Peter does. Furthermore, Peter speaks on his own authority
as inspired by God while James appeals to Moses and the other prophets. Thirdly, James builds
on Peter’s previous decree about the Gentiles being dispensed from much of the Jewish law – not
vice-versa. It can scarcely be believed that Peter would have this unique, primary and universal
authority if it were not given to him explicitly by Jesus.
II.F
Were Peter’s Successors recognized as Supremely Authoritative by Bishops in the
Post-Petrine Church?
After the Acts of the Apostles, we have only limited records of the leaders of the early
Church. There are four texts we can look at that relate to the primacy of Peter and his successors
(the Bishops of Rome). As we shall see, they confirm an unbroken line of thought from the
death of St. Peter to the writings of Cyprian of Carthage that the successors of St. Peter
maintained their primacy over the universal church in matters of teaching and the resolution of
juridical disputes.
II.F.1
Pope Clement I
Pope Clement I was consecrated Bishop of Rome (another title for “pope”) by Peter with
authority over the universal church, according to two early sources (Tertullian and the Liber
Pontificalis). He held this high office from 88-99 A.D. During that time, factions in the
Corinthian Church deposed the Bishop and other clergy. Pope Clement responded incisively and
strongly in a letter sent to the Church in Corinth ordering them to reinstate their leaders and be
“obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit.” Clement was certain that
he possessed the authority of God—as Peter’s successor—to resolve disputes for the whole
church beyond the See of Rome. Indeed, he believed he could sanction the rebellious factions
under penalty of sin by divine authority (the Holy Spirit) for their disobedience:
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret . . . If anyone disobey the things
which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders],
let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small
danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we
have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.28
If he had not possessed supreme authority which other local churches recognized as
coming from God, the dispute in Corinth would have gone unresolved, leading to further
breakdown in the church mere decades after Christ established it.
II.F.2
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch, in about 102 AD, wrote a letter to the Church
of Rome acknowledging that it was superior to—and presided over—all other Christian
Churches:
Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country
of the Romans . . . you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after
the Father.29
Charles Belmonte makes a comparative analysis of the tone of St. Ignatius’ many letters
to other bishops and the above letter to the Bishop of the Church of Rome (the Pope):
28 Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i.
29 Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans 1:1.
When one compares the tone of the epistles of St Ignatius, one notices that the epistle
addressed to the church of Rome is different. There is no doubt that the bishop of Antioch
is writing to a superior. He greets the church that is “presiding in the chief place of the
Roman territory;” evidently, presiding not over itself but over the other Christian
communities. He calls her “the one presiding in charity,” or “presiding in the bond of
love.” This is his way of saying “presiding over the Church universal.” St Ignatius will be
the first writer to use the expression “Catholic Church” to designate the Church founded
by Christ (See the Ep. to the Smyrnaeans, 8).30
As can be seen, at the end of the first century there is recognition by the local churches of
the supremacy of the bishop of the church in Rome. This seemingly universal recognition of the
supremacy of the bishop of Rome would have to have originated with Peter himself otherwise it
would have been seriously disputed. Peter, in turn, would have likely traced back to Jesus his
authorization to bestow primacy of authority to his successors (which he would have initially
appointed to the Diocese of Rome). Though Peter could have spoken on his own authority
(which, after all, was primary), it is likely that he interpreted his commission by Jesus to apply
not only to himself, but to his successors—the ones who would receive “the keys to the kingdom
of heaven” from him.
Recall that “the keys” refers to the highest office beneath the King himself (e.g., like
prime minister). As the local churches recognized at the turn of the first century, the successors
to Peter (who occupied the chair—the office—of the Church of Rome) had supreme teaching and
juridical authority over the universal church.
II.F.3
St. Irenaeus
St. Irenaeus (writing around 189 A.D.) declares that the Church of Rome (whose
presiding bishop is the pope) is owed obedience in matters of teaching by all other Christian
churches. He states:
With that church [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches
must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful
everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.31
Once again we see agreement on the supreme universal authority of the successor to Peter
in the Church of Rome.
II.F.4
St. Cyprian of Carthage
30 Charles Belmonte 2012 Faith Seeking Understanding (Cobrin Publishing)
http://fsubelmonte.weebly.com/letter-of-st-ignatius-of-antioch-to-the-romans.html
31 St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189].
St. Cyprian of Carthage, one of the greatest Latin apostolic fathers and bishop of
Carthage, wrote an important treatise on The Unity of the Catholic Church in 251 AD. In a key
passage, he recounts Jesus’ commission of Peter:
On him [Peter] he builds the Church (Mt 16:17-19), and to him he gives the command to
feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he
founded a single chair [the office of highest authority given to Peter and his successors], and he
established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others
were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear
that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock
is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast
to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of
Peter [the highest authoritative office established by Jesus for Peter and his successors] upon
whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?32
This passage shows how strongly the Early Church Fathers believed in the chair of
Peter—the highest teaching and juridical office in the church governing even the Bishops (the
successors to the Apostles) as established by Jesus.
II.F.5
Conclusion
The above passages from St. Pope Clement of Rome (assumed the papacy from 88-99
AD), St. Ignatius of Antioch (writing around 90 AD-106 AD), St. Irenaeus (writing around 189
AD), and St. Cyprian of Carthage (writing around 251 AD) collectively show that local churches
submitted themselves to the primacy and universal authority of the successors to St. Peter for two
centuries after Jesus established this highest office in His commission to St. Peter (MT 16:17-19
& Jn 21:15-17). This leadership seems to have achieved its intended role of maintaining unity
and a single truth to vouchsafe the Church and its teaching amidst considerable doctrinal and
juridical disputes. Without this primacy of authority, the Church would have likely disintegrated
into multiple factions or disappeared altogether in its first two centuries. In view of this, it is very
likely that Jesus foresaw these disputes, established a primary authority under Peter and his
successors and sent the Holy Spirit to protect His truth and the unity of His people through this
office.
III.
Major Benefits and Graces of the Catholic Church
What does the Catholic Church provide to believers not offered by any other church? What
graces, guidance, teachings, and spiritual depth are unique to the Catholic Church in helping
believers to live in the truth, form a steadfast unity with other believers leading to eternal salvation?
Among many unique features, six are particularly important: (1) the Sacrament of the Holy
32 Cyprian of Carthage The Unity of the Catholic Church Chap. 4. Trans by Dom Chapman philvaz.com:
http://philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm.
Eucharist (also called Sacrament of Communion), (2) Magisterium and Church Unity, (3)
Magisterium and Doctrinal Truth, (4) the Sacrament of Reconciliation, (5) the richness of Catholic
spiritual life, moral life, and intellectual life, (6) the other five sacraments of the Church.
In this module, we will treat the five benefits, but not the sixth (the other five sacraments33).
III.A
The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist
A sacrament is an outward sign of an inward grace, a sign which communicates the grace
(i.e., divine life) it signifies. So a sacrament communicates divine life to human lives, and allows
us to participate in divine, eternal life. Current historical exegesis strongly indicates that the
Catholic Church has taught and actualized Jesus’ true meaning of the sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist—that is to make Himself really present in the species of bread and wine, which is the
most significant spiritual gift provided by any church at any time. This authentic interpretation of
Jesus’ intention in the Holy Eucharist – His real presence—is confirmed by current studies of the
Jewish prophetic view of the “collapse of time” and Jesus’ equation of unconditional self-sacrifice
with unconditional love. This conviction about His real presence in the Eucharist is the universal
view of the New Testament writers and the Early Church fathers.34 We will briefly examine Jesus’
intention in giving us his real body and blood at the Last Supper – the real presence of Christ in
the Eucharist (Section III.A.1) and then summarize the five graces of this important sacrament
(Section III.A.2).
III.A.1
The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
“Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and
said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks
he gave it to them, saying, ’Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’” (Mt 26:26-28)
Let us begin with the meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic words. The Greek word for “body” is
“sōma,” which not only refers to his flesh and blood, but also to his whole self—his soul, and even
his divine person.35 With this understanding of “body,” Jesus’ Eucharistic words mean, “This is
my whole self given up for you.” Notice the parallel between Jesus’ Eucharistic words and his
definition of love given in the Gospel of John, “greater love has no one than this, that he lay down
his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13). Thus, in the Eucharist, Jesus is not only giving us His whole
33 If you are interested in investigating them, see The Credible Catholic Big Book, Volume X (for the Catholic view
of Baptism, Confirmation, Sacraments of the Sick, Sacrament of Reconciliation, and Holy Orders) and Volume XI
(for the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage).
34 For an extended explanation and historical development of the Holy Eucharist, see The Big Book, Volume IX (Chapter 1)
on Jesus’ intention at the Last Supper, and Chapter 3 on transubstantiation in www.crediblecatholic.com – click on
“The Big Book.” 35 See the credible catholic Big Book, Volume IX, Chapter 1.
self (His whole person) He is also giving us His love, indeed, His unconditional Love—that is, a
love which cannot be exceeded.
This unconditional Love is confirmed by the gift of His blood (which, according to Jewish
custom, is separated from the body of the sacrificial offering). When Jesus offered His blood
separately from His body, He showed Himself to be an intentional self-sacrifice which He
interpreted to be an offering of unconditional Love.
Blood (the substance of life for the Israelites) was the vehicle through which atonement
occurred in sin or guilt offerings. Jesus’ reference to His sacrificial blood would almost
inevitably be seen as the blood of a sin-offering—with the notable exception that the sin-offering
is no longer an animal, but rather, Jesus Himself, the Beloved One of God the Father. Jesus
humbled Himself (taking the place of an animal—a sacrificial sin-offering) to take away the sins
of the world forever.
Jesus goes beyond this by associating Himself with the Paschal lamb. His use of blood
within the context of the Passover supper shows that He also intended to take the place of the
Passover lamb. He loved us so much that He desired to become the new Passover sacrifice,
replacing an unblemished lamb with His own divine presence.
Recall that the blood of the Passover lamb (put on the doorposts of every Israelite
household) was the instrument through which the Israelite people were protected from death (the
angel of death passing over those houses) which enabled them to move out of slavery in Egypt to
freedom in the Promised Land. When Jesus (the Son of God) took the place of a sacrificial lamb,
He transformed a merely earthly freedom from slavery in Egypt into a heavenly freedom from
evil and death, leading to eternal life in unconditional love. As such, the Holy Eucharist is the
power and love of Jesus to protect us from Satan and usher us into His eternal kingdom.
There is yet a third dimension of Jesus’ use of blood which He explicitly states as “the
Blood of the covenant.” A covenant was a solemn promise that bound parties to an unbreakable
agreement. When Jesus associates His blood with the covenant, He is guaranteeing the covenant
with His life (because blood is the substance of life). When He sheds His blood on the cross (the
following day), He elevates His guarantee from the status of word-based to action–based,
making it an absolute and unbreakable guarantee.
So what is this covenant or contract about? It is a guarantee of His unconditional love (by
giving us His whole self), a guarantee of the forgiveness of our sins (by making Himself a sin
offering), a guarantee of freedom from darkness, emptiness, and slavery to sin, evil, and Satan
(by taking the place of the Pascal lamb), and a guarantee of eternal life (by giving us the blood of
the new covenant).
How do we know that Jesus intended to give us His real body and blood—His real crucified
and risen self—rather than a merely symbolic presence in the bread and wine? First there are the
obvious implications of John’s Eucharistic discourse (John 6). Consider the following:
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they
died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it
and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats
of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of
the world is my flesh… Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh
is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my
blood abides in me, and I in him (Jn. 6: 48-51, 53-56).
Note how this passage does not say, “The bread that I shall give for the life of the world is
symbolic of my flesh,” but rather, says, “is my flesh.” There is not even an implication of
symbolism in this passage. How can this Scripture passage reporting the words of Jesus be read
in any way other than “the bread is Jesus’ real body and the wine is Jesus’ real blood”?
Secondly, Jesus’ action at the Last Supper is prophetic—that is, it reaches into the future
toward its fulfillment—and in accordance with Jesus’ intention, brings the future fulfillment into
the present. The First Century Jewish view of time is quite different from our physical view of
time. While we rightfully acknowledge that time is physical, objectively determinant, and
measurable, we miss another legitimate characteristic of time noticed by Jewish culture—
namely, that all time is in God’s mind, and that He can take various dimensions of time and
manipulate or collapse them according to His will. This is perfectly possible within current
views of time if we acknowledge that all time is manipulable in the mind of God.
First Century Judaism viewed time as sacred, manipulable and collapsible—particularly
with respect to prophetic utterances about the future and ritual reenactments of past events.36
With respect to prophetic utterances, the prophetic word was understood to move into the future,
collapsing the time between the prophetic utterance and its future fulfillment. Thus, when Jesus
says, “Take and eat, this is my body” (Mt. 26:26), He means the bread is really His body right
now though it is to be given on the cross in the future. He intends through His prophetic word
and action to bring His future sacrificed body into the bread He is giving to His disciples in the
present. He knows His Father can collapse the time between the bread He is holding in the
present and the sacrificed body to be given at Calvary. The same holds true for the blood. When
He says, “This is the blood of the covenant,” He intends to collapse the future blood shed on the
cross into the cup of wine given to His disciples. In sum, when Jesus uttered His prophetic
words at the table, He made present His real future body and blood sacrificed in love for
humankind on the cross. For Him, the separation of time was transcended and overcome by His
36 In Spitzer 2016 God So Loved the World pp. 124-140, there are several references to historical studies justifying
this view of “manipulable and collapsible sacred time” in both Jewish culture and other ancient cultures. For studies
concerned with Jewish culture, see Johannes Betz 1968-70 “Eucharist” in Sacramentum Mundi ed. by Karl Rahner,
Vol. 2 (London: Burns & Oates) pp. 260-261. See also Joachim Jeremias 1966 The Eucharistic Words of Jesus
(London: SCM Press) pp. 223-24. For an explanation of the ancient Jewish view of the collapse of time in the
reenactment of the Passover, see Gerhard von Rad 1965 Old Testament Theology, Volume II: The Theology of
Israel’s Prophetic Traditions (London: Westminster John Knox Press) pp. 104-108. For studies concerned with
“collapsible sacred time” in other ancient cultures, see Mircea Eliade 1987 The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature
of Religion (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich) pp. 40-45. See also Eliade 1971 The Myth of the Eternal
Return: or Cosmos and History (Princeton: Princeton University Press), the entire volume.
and His Father’s divine power—and therefore the reality of His future body sacrificed on the
cross was just as real in the present moment as it would be in the future.
It is important to note here that First Century Judaism did not have a view of a merely
symbolic (abstract) prophetic utterance. Beyond the fact that Judaism did not make a strict
separation between mind and body, there is no precedent for reducing a prophetic utterance to
merely symbolic (non-real) significance. In view of this, we should interpret Jesus’ words as He
meant them—that the bread was His real crucified body—and that the wine was His real blood
poured out for us on the cross.
Jesus did not expect the bread to turn into the appearance of His flesh, or the wine to turn
into the appearance of His blood. Though these appearances are very important to our scientific
mindset today, they were seen only as incidental by the First Century Jewish mindset which saw
the bread as the medium through which the future salvific event is present—really present—
irrespective of what it looked like to them. This is why John’s Eucharistic discourse can be so
explicit—“and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh…” (Jn 6:51).
If God is beyond all time (and that time exists through the mind of God), then God can do
anything He wants – He can bring a future event into the present (as Jesus expects He will do
through His prophetic utterance), and He can also bring the reality of a past event into the present
– which is what He expects will occur when He commands His disciples to “Do this in
remembrance of me.” (Lk 22:19).
So what did Jesus mean by His command to the apostles, “Do this in remembrance of me”?
In First Century Jewish culture, “remembrance” does not mean “calling to mind”—a merely
cognitive recollection. It means a ritualistic re-living of the salvific event which brings the reality
of God’s grace and power into the present in the same way it occurred in the past. First Century
Judaism did not make a separation between mind and body (a Greek distinction). Thus a
ritualistic re-living was a re-presentation of a real—not merely an abstract—event in which
God’s real saving grace and power are present.37
Further, First Century Judaism shared with other contemporary cultures the view of sacred
time in which the re-living or reenactment of a sacred event causes time between the past event
and the present to collapse.38 Thus, the reenactment brings the grace and power of the past event
into the present moment. So when Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” He meant that
the apostles (and their followers) should engage in a ritual reenactment of His Eucharistic words
(which would make His real body and blood—His whole person—really present in the bread and
wine). Hence, when a priest reenacts Jesus’ words and actions at the Last Supper, the time
between the Last Supper and the present reenactment collapses by the mind and power of God.
This reenactment makes His real body and blood present to every generation until the end of
time.
Johannes Betz summarizes the positions of Eliade, Jeremias, and von Rad, as follows:
37 See Ibid. Johannes Betz, Gerhard von Rad, Joachim Jeremias, and Mircea Eliade.
38 See Ibid. Johannes Betz, Gerhard von Rad, Joachim Jeremias, and Mircea Eliade.
Anamnesis [remembrance] in the biblical sense means not only the subjective
representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering
mind. It is also the objective [real] effectiveness and presence of one reality in
another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in
the liturgical worship. Even in the Old Testament, the liturgy is the privileged
medium in which the covenant attains actuality. The meaning of the logion [“Do
this in remembrance of me”] may perhaps be paraphrased as follows: “do this (what
I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the
salvation wrought in me.”39
In sum, the reality of Jesus’ crucified body and blood in the bread and wine is a result of a
double collapse of time which God effects through prophetic utterance and ritualistic
reenactment:
● First collapse of time—Jesus’ prophetic utterance brings His real crucified body and
blood (in the future) into the present bread and wine in the ritual during the Passover
supper.
● Second collapse of time—the priest collapses the time between the Last Supper (in
which Jesus’ body and blood are really present in the bread and wine He offered to His
disciples) into the present moment through the consecration at Mass (the ritual
reenactment of Jesus’ Eucharistic words).
It may be difficult for us in the present day to conceive of the Eucharistic gift (Jesus’ real
body and blood) being made present through a double collapse of time by prophetic utterance
and ritual reenactment. However, as noted above, this is perfectly possible and actualizable in the
mind of God through which all time must exist.40 Since Jesus was no doubt aware that time
exists through the divine mind, his intention to actualize the double collapse of time in the
reliving of his ritual actions and words (at mass) was quite realistic.41 If Jesus really intended
this double collapse of time when he initiated the rite of the Eucharist (at the Last Supper), and
his expectation that His Father would actualize this collapse of time was realistic, why wouldn’t
we believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist?
III.A.2
The Five Graces of the Eucharist
What did Jesus intend that the Holy Eucharist—this total gift of Himself—would bring into
the inner being and life of the recipient? There are five principle graces that redeem, heal, and
transform us:
39 Johannes Betz 1968-70 “Eucharist” in Sacramentum Mundi, Vol. 2, p. 260.
40 For the requirement that time exist through a transcendent mentative state, see Henri Bergson 1991 Duration in
Simultaneity: Bergson and the Einsteinian Universe, trans. by Leon Jacobson (Clinamen Press Ltd).
See also Robert Spitzer 2010 New Proofs for the Existence of God pp. 183-197.
See also Spitzer 2000, “Definitions of Real Time and Ultimate Reality” Journal of Ultimate Reality and Meaning:
Interdisciplinary Studies in the Philosophy of Understanding, 23:3 (September 2000) pp. 260-276.
41 See the above citations to Johannes Betz, Joachim Jeremias, Gerhardt von Rad, and Mircea Eliade.
1. Spiritual Peace,
2. Forgiveness/healing,
3. Transformation in His image,
4. Unity within the mystical body, and
5. Everlasting life.
Let us briefly examine each.
With respect to the first gift—spiritual peace, the prayers of the Mass petition the Lord to
grant us this grace: “Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.” The
Gospels also associate Jesus’ gift of himself with his transcendent peace:
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give it to you as the world gives it.
Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid (Jn. 14:27).
The crucified and risen body and blood of our Lord places us in intimate relationship with
Him which, if we allow it, brings an increased trust in the Lord—a capacity to let go of our worries
by giving them to Him. This, in turn, enables us to accept the peace given to us by the Holy Spirit
even in times of abject fear and deep grief.
With respect to the second gift—forgiveness and healing, Jesus taught that His body and
blood was for the forgiveness of sins (Mt. 26:28). He meant this not only in a general sense – the
forgiveness of the sinfulness of people throughout the world for all time – but also in an individual
sense – the forgiveness of the recipient of His body and blood. As we saw above, Jesus made
Himself a sin offering for all people, and specifically for those who would participate in the
reenactment of His Eucharistic meal. Therefore, it seems likely that He intended to bring about
reconciliation and healing through the consumption of His body and blood.
The Church continues to proclaim this grace of forgiveness and healing in the liturgy:
● “Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”
● “Look, this is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
● “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.”
How does this square with Paul’s admonition not to receive the Holy Eucharist unworthily
(1 Cor. 11:27-29)? The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that we should not receive
communion after we have committed a mortal sin.42 If we have committed such a sin, we should
go to the sacrament of reconciliation before receiving communion. It should be noted that mortal
sin requires sufficient reflection and full consent of the will (no impediments to the free use of the
will).43 There are many such impediments which would mitigate culpability, thereby negating the
42 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1385.
43 See the Catechism of the Catholic Church Sections 1857-1861. Of special interest are the impediments to free
will listed in 1859-1860.
occurrence of a mortal sin endangering our salvation.44 Impediments may be external (such as
being constrained, forced, or threatened to do something against one’s will) or internal (such as
strong passions or feelings,45 strong unconscious motivations, psychological disorders,46
addictions, deeply engrained habits, and strong situational fear, duress, and depression). Though
there are many conditions required for the commission of a mortal sin, we must be aware that we
have sufficient freedom to commit one, and if we really do commit such a sin without impediment
to the free use of our will, we should refrain from Holy Communion until we have received
absolution at the sacrament of reconciliation.
In view of the above, how might we say that the Holy Eucharist forgives our sins? When
we receive the Holy Eucharist with sincere contrition, the Lord will forgive and heal sins which
are not mortal. This would include not only venial sins, but also actions classified as grave matter,
but committed without sufficient knowledge and/or full consent of the will. With respect to the
latter, we may be unsure of whether sufficient knowledge and full consent of the will were present,
and so it is best to plan on going to confession to obtain absolution and to ask the priest for
clarification on this matter.
Saint Ambrose (375 A.D.) in his work on the sacraments emphasizes this grace of
forgiveness:
As often as we receive [Holy Communion], we show the Lord’s death; if we show
his death, we show remission of sins. If, as often as blood is poured forth, it is
poured for remission of sins, I ought always to receive it, that my sins may always
be forgiven me. I, who am always sinning, ought always to have a remedy.47
This theological viewpoint has been reinforced throughout the last 2000 years, and is found
today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is ‘given up for us’, and the
blood we drink ‘shed for the forgiveness of sins’. For this reason the Eucharist
cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and
preserving us from future sins.48
Yet the reconciling power of Christ’s body and blood is not limited to forgiveness and
cleansing of sin. It also heals souls which have been adversely affected by sin. It is as if Christ’s
44 Catechism of the Catholic Church Sections 1859-1860: “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete
consent.”
45 According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1860, “The promptings of feelings and passions can also
diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.”
46 Psychological disorders may include psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder,
and long-standing neuroses – among other disorders.
47 St. Ambrose On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments , ed. by J.H. Strawley and trans. by T.
Thompson, B.D. , Chap VI, in Online Library http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/ambrose-on-the-mysteries-and-the-
treatise-on-the-sacraments.
48 CCC #1393.
healing power (manifest in his extensive ministry of healing) is personally present within us,
helping us to overcome the habits and effects of past darkness.
The healing power of the Eucharist has been long attested by those who have benefited from
it emotionally, physically, and spiritually.49 This healing power has truly helped the sick, the
depressed, the anxious, those who are recovering from addictions and those who are recovering
from spiritual illness – particularly those who have been away from God, Christ, and the Church.50
You may want to read the many online testimonials to this healing power.51 The key to healing
through the Holy Eucharist is our awareness of the presence and power of the Lord’s body and
blood accompanied by fervent prayer for healing.
With respect to the third gift – transformation in the Lord’s heart, Jesus says:
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood,
abides in Me and I in him (Jn. 6:56).
The idea of one person living in another is the highest possible form of intimacy – far
exceeding living with another. Jesus intended that we enter into this highest possible intimate
relationship with Him by receiving Him in His body and blood -- the Holy Eucharist. If He did not
intend this, the expression “living in” would be virtually inexplicable.
Why did Jesus use this expression of highest intimacy? He wanted to signify not only the
highest unitive state we could have with another, but also the transformative effects that come from
this intimate union. For example, when we live with another human being whom we respect, like
and love, it is quite typical for them to “rub off on us.” We can’t help it – we assimilate not only
their good characteristics, but also some of their personality attributes, their feelings, and even
their mindset. If this can occur by merely living with another, we can only imagine what could
happen when we live in another, and another lives in us. Perhaps the best way of conveying this is
through the mottos of Saint Francis de Sales and Blessed John Henry Newman – “cor ad cor
Loquitor” – “heart speaking directly to heart.”
When we receive the Holy Eucharist and call to mind that Jesus has entered into this most
intimate relationship with us and in us, His heart will begin to affect – indeed transform -- our
hearts. He will not do this in a way that undermines or overpowers our freedom, but in a way that
respects our freedom – seizing every opportunity He can to transform our hearts ever so patiently
into the unconditionally loving heart He has for us. Sometimes this is so subtle that we barely
notice the transition taking place within us. For an example of how Fr. Spitzer underwent this
transformation through the Eucharist, see the Credible Catholic Big Book, Volume 9 (Chapter 1,
Section III.C).
49 See for example John Hampsch 1999, The Healing Power of the Eucharist (Welland Ontario, CA: Servant Book
Publications).
50 See Ibid.
51 See for example, the many Eucharistic healings recounted by Jeanne and Ken Harrington 2006 “Healing Through
Communion.” http://sidroth.org/articles/healing-through-communion/
With respect to the fourth gift of the Holy Eucharist – unity with the mystical body -- Saint
Paul taught that we are all united in the mystical body of Christ:
If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored,
all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and
individually members of it (1 Cor 12:26-27).
Saint Paul is telling us that we share in and derive strength from the grace, love, and joy of the
whole communion of saints both past and present – and that we also share in the tribulations of the
mystical body on earth. The more we receive the Body of Christ, the more we become unified with
Him and every member of the Church and the Communion of Saints. As we receive the Eucharist,
we become more tightly bound to the community living in and through Christ. This has a two-fold
effect. First, the joy, love, strength, tribulation, and challenge of the Church community affect our
minds and hearts – our conscious and subconscious psyche. Secondly, we affect and contribute
our gifts and challenges to the same community. It is like living with family members – the more
time we spend with them, the more their joys, loves, and concerns and sufferings affect us – and
our joys, concerns, and sufferings affect them. We can feel, or perhaps better, sense the liturgical
seasons, the sorrow and repentances of Lent, the joy and redemption of Christmas and Easter, and
the joyful expectation of Advent. We become more attuned to the ways that the Spirit is working
– not just in our lives, but in the lives of members of our local Church, and even in the universal
Church. For an example of how Fr. Spitzer experienced this as a young man on Christmas Eve,
see the Credible Catholic Big Book, Volume 9 (Chapter 1, Section III.C).
The fifth grace of the Eucharist – eternal salvation – is the central focus of the Eucharistic
discourse in the gospel of John. The repetition of “eternal life” in this discourse shows not only
the importance of this grace, but its centrality in John’s Eucharistic theology:
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they
died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it
and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats
of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of
the world is my flesh (Jn. 6: 48-51).
This gospel passage summarizes Jesus’ primary intention at the Last Supper – to secure
the eternal salvation of all who receive His body and blood in faith. Jesus’ strategy now
becomes clear, the first four gifts of the Holy Eucharist – peace, forgiveness of sins/healing,
transformation in his heart, and unity with the Church through His mystical body – all lead to
everlasting life and love in Him with His Father. Ultimately, this gift is the reason not only for
the Eucharist, but the Mass itself and indeed the Church, which have as their center the truth,
goodness, beauty, and love of the complete self-sacrifice of Jesus leading us to eternal life.
There can be no greater prayer, no greater grace, no greater transformative power, and no
greater path to salvation than the faithful reception of the Holy Eucharist, in which we focus
intently on the real presence of our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ in His crucified, risen, and
mystical body. This is the central act of spiritual conversion within Christianity itself. The
denial of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist not only undermines His intention for all
His followers, but also the most powerful and loving grace available to us for communion with
Him and the path to salvation.
III.B
The Magisterium and Doctrinal Truth
“Magisterium” refers to the teaching authority of the Church as it was vested by Jesus in
St. Peter and his successors together with the combined council of the Bishops (the successors to
the apostles). You might be wondering why a definitive teaching authority is a benefit. After all,
we might have to obey it, which could be inconvenient. Though this may be inconvenient, Jesus
instituted the Church Magisterium for our benefit, particularly to help us to get and stay on the
path to salvation—the ultimate reason for our lives in this world. A church authority helps to
achieve this by helping us interpret the sayings of Jesus, so that we might know what He truly
taught and intended for us (see above, Sections I and II). The better we know Jesus’ teachings and
intentions, the better we will be able to get and stay on the path to salvation. Furthermore, inasmuch
as the Magisterium guarantees one and only one doctrinal truth, it also preserves church unity.
Let’s begin with the need for a definitive teaching authority to preserve doctrinal truth. As
can be seen from Christian history, the meaning of Jesus’ words and actions are not completely
self-evident, so without an authentic interpreter of them, we are left to ourselves. Regrettably, our
lack of scriptural and theological knowledge and our inclination toward self-interest and bias
makes us less than ideal authentic interpreters of Jesus’ true meaning in the scriptures. If we do
not understand what Jesus really intended and how it applies to our times, we are likely to make
at least a few serious mistakes, some of which could jeopardize our salvation. As noted above
(Section II), Jesus was well aware of our inadequacies and needs, and instituted a definitive
teaching authority through St. Peter and the apostles to help us where we cannot help ourselves.
The Protestant doctrinal pillar, sola scriptura (“by scripture alone”), has unfortunately led
to tens of thousands of different doctrinal teachings. To say the least this is not only confusing, but
in many cases, terribly misleading. Martin Luther indicated, "a simple layman armed with
Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it.” This mischaracterizes the Catholic Church
by implying that the Pope would do the unthinkable—interpret the teaching of Jesus without
reference to scripture. Perhaps more seriously, it overestimates the capacity of anyone not specially
commissioned by Jesus to interpret scripture definitively.
Regrettably, no person without the Grace of office (initiated by Jesus) by himself can be in
the required position to definitively interpret Jesus’ words. Furthermore, even the greatest scripture
scholar cannot replicate the collective interpretive power and knowledge of St. Peter, the apostles,
their successors, and the collective body of scholars supporting them. The authentic interpretation
of scripture can only be accomplished through the Grace of legitimate office. It also requires the
tradition of the Apostolic Church (out of which the New Testament was written) as well as the
continuously developing tradition of applying Jesus’ teachings to diverse times, cultures, and
places.52 Without this living tradition, our interpretation of scripture is devoid of the immense
context of past applications and interpretations of Jesus’ words given from apostolic times to the
52 See Yves Congar 1997 Tradition and Traditions: The Biblical, Historical, and Theological Evidence for Catholic
Teaching on Tradition –2nd edition (Boston: Ginn and Company Publishing).
present. Finally, authentic and definitive interpretation of Jesus’ words requires a large body of
qualified scholars to support the collective mind and heart of those given the special Grace of Jesus
to further develop His teachings through that tradition. The only body that possesses the special
grace of Jesus given to Peter and his successors as well as the continuously developed apostolic
tradition and the body of scholars supporting it is The Catholic Church.
When we consider that the Catholic Church was initiated by Jesus to be built upon the
Rock of Peter and his successors, that they formulated a tradition on which the scriptures were
based and upon which the scriptures were applied and consistently interpreted for millennia, and
that this tradition produced an immense body of spiritual and moral thought practiced by thousands
of genuinely Holy men and women, we may adduce the guidance of the Holy Spirit fulfilling the
promise of Jesus to Peter that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against it. If we want
to be sure of the true meaning of Jesus’ words, and to know as clearly as possible the path to
salvation, we will have to look beyond ourselves and even beyond our favorite scholars to the
Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. Depriving ourselves of the Catholic Church -- this
gift of Jesus to interpret his words -- could truly weaken or even undermine our path to salvation.
III.C
The Magisterium and Church Unity
The Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church not only guarantees the
legitimacy of doctrine and our path to salvation, but also has maintained the unity of the Church
throughout two millennia. The Church’s unbroken succession of Popes going back to Peter, and
its unchanging consistent continuously developing interpretation of Jesus’ words (witnessed by
the lives of thousands of canonized and uncanonized Holy men and women) has indeed formed a
solid foundation which maintained unity amidst much diversity and crisis throughout the centuries.
Without the supreme authority of Peter and his successors, this unity would not have been possible.
Indeed, there would have been a huge number of distinct denominations within the Catholic
Church, resembling the 35,496 denominations within the protestant church after 500 years.53 Note
that the Catholic Church has maintained its unity throughout 2,000 years, lasting 1,500 years
longer than any protestant church. The absence of this fractioning – amidst considerable
disagreement and dispute – evidences the presence of the Holy Spirit and a fulfillment of Christ’s
promise to Peter that he (Peter) would be the rock upon which the Church would be built and that
the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18). Jesus asks the Father in His
priestly prayer before His Passion to preserve the unity of the Church in future generations:
I ask not only on behalf of these [the apostles], but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word [all future generations of the Church of Peter and the apostles], that they may all be one (Jn. 17: 20-21).
The great historian of culture and civilization, Arnold Toynbee, testified to the unique
nature of the Catholic Church to endure beyond any other institution throughout history—a
conviction that brought him from agnosticism to the light of Christ:
53 See the Association of Religious Archives, 2009-2010 “Sources for Religious Congregations & Membership
Data” http://www.thearda.com/rcms2010/RCMS_Notes.asp
The Church in its traditional form thus stands forth armed with the spear of the
Mass, the shield of the Hierarchy, and the helmet of the Papacy…and the divine
intention…of this heavy panoply of institutions in which the Church has clad
herself is the very practical one of outlasting the toughest of the secular institutions
of this world, including all the civilizations. If we survey all the institutions of
which we have knowledge in the present and in the past, I think that the institutions
created, or adopted and adapted, by Christianity are the toughest and the most
enduring of any that we know and are therefore the most likely to last--and outlast
all the rest…54
How did the Catholic Church do this? How did it outlast every other secular and religious
institution – by far? How did it maintain its remarkable unity over 2,000 years when all other
secular and religious institutions underwent fractioning and dissipation in much shorter times? Is
it, as Toynbee suggests, divine intention? If Toynbee is correct, then it is very likely that Divine
Providence has kept the Church unified in truth for centuries—a remarkably powerful sign of
Christ’s fidelity to his promise to Peter.
III.D
The Sacrament of Reconciliation
Through the sacrament of reconciliation we turn away from sin and turn back to God. We
confess our sins to God with sincerity and allow God’s forgiveness and mercy to pour into our
heart. We are reunited with God and live in Him anew to share His life of eternal loving mercy.
The sacrament of reconciliation is probably best understood in light of Jesus’ parable of the
prodigal son (Lk 15: 11-32). The greedy and selfish son left his father and took his father’s gifts
with him, only to run into financial and moral ruin. He was separated from his father: lost,
seemingly without a future. And yet his father continued to love him and continued to want to have
him back in close, loving relationship. But of course the father could not force a loving relationship
on his son, the son had to make the free decision to repent of his sins against the father and to
return to him. When the son did repent and did return to the father he (the son) was finally able to
receive the father’s love that was always there for him. So it is with the sacrament of reconciliation.
The sacrament gifts us a most powerful grace and light, severing our bondage to sin. Sin
separates us from God, who is love and goodness personified. By turning from sin and back to
God we walk in the path of Christ instead of the path of the evil one, who Jesus called “Satan” (Mt
4:10). The sacrament of reconciliation also nourishes our conversion, spiritually strengthening us
as we walk on Jesus’ path of salvation. It is one of the most precious gifts given to the apostles
and the Church to definitively wipe away our sins and to secure us on the path to salvation and to
grant the peace and light of Christ. There is literally no sin God will not forgive if it is sincerely
confessed. This is truly the Gospel (“good news”). Why would any Christian want to live without
the sacrament of reconciliation if s/he understood the true reality of God’s love, as well as the
cosmic struggle between good and evil in which we are living?
54 Arnold Toynbee 1948 “Christianity and Civilization” in Civilization on Trial (Oxford University Press)
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/toynbee.html.
Though the sacrament of reconciliation is frequently minimized and even overlooked in
today’s Church culture, its power to catalyze a change of heart, the call of God, and moral
conversion make it essential in a culture steeped in materialism, sensuality, and egoism on the
internet, traditional media, the workplace, social settings and associations, and other institutions.
In order to understand the significance of this sacrament, we will briefly describe its origin in
Jesus and its five key graces.
The sacrament of reconciliation has its origin in the New Testament in which Jesus
clearly imparts the power to forgive sins through the Holy Spirit to the apostles after the
resurrection:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I
send you. "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them,
"Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained (Jn 20: 21-23).
The meaning of this passage is clear – Jesus gave a universal power to forgive and retain
sins to His apostles – “If you forgive the sins of any…” Though the form under which this power
is to be administered is not defined, it is evident that the apostles (and by implication their
successors) are to be mediators of the divine power and authority of forgiveness. Since the power
to forgive sins belongs to God alone,55 Jesus gave his apostles the power and charge to be
mediators of His own divine power through the Holy Spirit. As such it is a sacramental power of
forgiveness and reconciliation administered by the Church since its inception.
There are five key graces of the sacrament which absolve us, heal us, release us from
bondage to Satan, and set us and keep us on the path to salvation:
1. Definitive absolution for mortal and venial sins. When penitents are sincerely contrite
(perfectly or imperfectly) and express firm purpose of amendment, the forgiving and
merciful power of Jesus Christ is given definitively to them through the absolving
action of the priest. At this juncture, they are no longer held bound by their sins, and
can start their spiritual and moral lives anew. Jesus was well aware that without
definitive absolution, we can never be sure whether our prayers for forgiveness have
been answered. This uncertainty leaves us feeling unforgiven, unreconciled, and
unhealed from our past sins, leading to a state of guilt and uncertainty in our
relationship with God – a state which keeps us at a distance from Him. As the months
and years go by, the distance grows into an ever weakening faith that leads to
emptiness, loneliness, and alienation on the most fundamental level. Jesus knew we
could not release ourselves from this bondage of guilt, ambivalence, and emptiness,
and so He instituted the sacrament of reconciliation where His words and power of
absolution could move through his appointed mediators into the hearts and lives of
penitents. If you have been away from the sacrament of reconciliation for a while,
you will want to avail yourself of its absolving and healing power which will
55 The power to forgive sins belongs to God alone -- see Psalm 103:2-3, Is. 43:25, and Mk. 2:5-7.
immediately remove the distance between you and God by removing the burden of
sin.
2. Spiritual solidification of a turning point in life. Countless are the number of people
who have lost their way – or are in the process of losing their way from the Church,
the moral teaching of Jesus, and a moral life in union with God. The Lord tries to call
these individuals back to his light and life through the prompting of conscience,
feelings of deep spiritual emptiness, alienation, and loneliness, and through signs of
the consequences of the evil they are pursuing. If they act on these “big hints,” they
will need a solid grace-filled foundation on which to ground their turning point and
change of heart. As many of us who have turned our lives around can attest, the
sacrament of reconciliation is indispensable for filling our desire to change with the
grace, power, and love of God so that we will no longer be held bound by past
failures and enslavement to sin (and sin’s master, the evil one). The grace of the
sacrament of reconciliation gives substance to the act of conversion, removes
bondage to the evil one, decreases the influence of the evil one, and gives a renewed
sense of light and hope in Christ. Given that many of us will have several “turning
point” moments throughout life, this sacrament is essential for bringing the needed
substance and reinforcement to our intentions, so that we can be liberated from the
bondage and influence of the evil one, and be filled with the light of Christ.
3. Healing of the damage of sin. A sinful life can cause considerable damage to one’s
emotional, interpersonal, and spiritual life. Sin can cause us to feel hostility toward
the truth, healthy loving relationships, religion, the Church, and even Christ himself.
We need the grace of Jesus Christ to help us return to the light of truth, love,
goodness, and faith, not only to break with our old proclivities but to rekindle the
desire for new, good habits (virtues) in Christ. If you have had the experience of
feeling aversion or even hostility towards religion, religious practice, committed
relationships, or even Jesus, when previously you felt peace, fulfillment, and care for
them, you will want to assess the reason for your change of heart. If those reasons are
connected to a rejection of divine moral authority or specific moral standards, then
you may have suffered damage to your spiritual wellbeing, making you more subject
to the suggestions of the evil spirit over those of the Holy Spirit. If so, then you may
need the power and grace of the sacrament of reconciliation to help overcome the
spiritual damage, break free from the evil spirit, and be restored to the truth and love
of Jesus Christ. The power and grace of the sacrament of reconciliation catalyzes the
light and love of Christ within our hearts, and if we receive the sacrament several
times per year, it continues to help us, building on itself as “grace upon grace” (Jn.
1:16). As healing continues through our efforts and the grace of this sacrament,
sanity, truth, love, goodness, and faith in Jesus Christ return and grow stronger.
4. Graced resolve for continued conversion. Many of the benefits of this sacrament
occur after receiving it. If we continue to bring our firm purpose of amendment to
daily prayer after the sacrament, its grace fills our intention with a kind of
supernatural strength, facilitating progress in our moral conversion.
5. The peace of Christ. When we recognize the harm our sins have done to others and
the spiritual jeopardy to which they have subjected us, we may suffer a deep sense of
emptiness, alienation, loneliness, and guilt from which it is difficult to find relief.
Most human solutions, such as counseling or conversation with friends, do not seem
to get at the heart of this alienation and guilt. Even our best friends cannot take it
away. The one truly freeing breakthrough moment that transforms deep self-
alienation and guilt into supernatural peace is the sacrament of reconciliation. After
absolution and the priest’s farewell – “Go in peace” – God’s peace comes into our
souls and does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. He lifts us out of our
emptiness, alienation, and guilt into His sublime light and security. If anyone wants
evidence of the power of supernatural grace helping us beyond mere natural and
human causation, the grace of this sacrament which is a “peace beyond all
understanding” (Phil. 4:7) may well provide it. It is as if the Lord’s light and peace
breaks through the darkness into which the evil spirit has lured and mired us – yet
another instance of Christ’s victory over satan manifest in our lives.
As can be seen from the above five graces, the sacrament of reconciliation
is one of the very best gifts that God has given to us through the Church he founded
on Peter and his successors. It is so powerful in liberating us from the darkness of
evil into which we may have become mired, in healing the residual damage from it,
and filling us with peace and continuing resolve, that it may well be called, “evil’s
spell breaker” or “the continued victory of Christ over satan in our lives.” Though
some may question the need for this sacrament because it can be challenging or they
think that a human mediator is unnecessary, they are quite mistaken, for it is one of
the very best ways of authentically examining our conscience and bringing the
definitive absolving and healing presence of Christ into our lives. If someone offers
you a definitive means of unshackling yourself from sin and evil and the spiritual
death that is their consequence, and bringing you a peace beyond all understanding
for the mere request of authentically acknowledging and being contrite for your sins,
wouldn’t you accept it? This is precisely why Jesus gave His apostles (and their
successors) the power to forgive sins:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I
send you. "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them,
"Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained” (Jn 20: 21-23).
III.E
Spiritual, Moral, and Intellectual Life
There are literally encyclopedic volumes devoted to Catholic spiritual life56, moral life57,
and intellectual life58, but this vast content cannot be treated adequately in this brief module. A
brief outline of some major contributions is outlined here to give a semblance of the rich tapestry
of sacred culture that has been influenced by the Catholic Church—it’s priests, religious, and lay
faithful. We will briefly outline three areas: Spiritual Life, Moral Life, and Intellectual Life.
1. Spiritual Life -- The many developments of spirituality (through religious orders and lay
associations), the development of Christian mysticism from the desert fathers through the current
day, and the development of multiple modes of prayer -- from Lectio Divina to the discernment
of spirits – shows the presence of the Holy Spirit animating the Church’s awareness and practice
of deep, authentic, spiritual life. Classic spiritual authors include St. Catherine of Siena, St.
Teresa of Ávila and Saint Thérèse of Lisieux. No other Christian church manifests anything
close to this richness of spiritual depth and tradition. When we combine the spiritual traditions
arising out of the Church fathers, the Benedictines, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Jesuits,
the Carmelites, and the many other religious and spiritual traditions in the Catholic Church, we
must ask ourselves, “what is the source from which all of these rich spiritual traditions sprang?”
We are led back to what St. Irenaeus called, “the greatest and most ancient church known to
all… it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” 59
2. Moral Life –The Catholic Church applied the teachings of Jesus to almost every aspect of moral,
social, cultural, and political life, including the development of the notion of conscience (St.
Paul), the notion of free will (St. Augustine), the development of systematic moral theology (St.
Thomas Aquinas, Servais Pinckaers, etc.), justice theory (St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas,
John Finnis, etc.), virtue ethics (Elizabeth Anscombe, Alisdair MacIntyre, etc.), natural law
theory (St. Thomas Aquinas, Germain Grisez, etc.), the systematization of Canon Law and its
profound influence on civil law (Gratian), the universalization and equalization of personhood
(Boethius, Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas, etc.), human dignity (Pope Pius XII, Charles Malik
[Greek Orthodox], etc.)human rights theory (Gratian, Fr. Francisco Suarez, Jacques Maritain,
Mary Ann Glendon, etc.), and the social teaching of the Catholic Church -- from Pope Leo XIII
to today 60. The Church also developed specializations in both medical ethics and business
56 See for example Michael Downey, 1993 Ed. The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality (Michael Glazier). See
also The Classics of Western Spirituality series (Paulist Press) which consists of 123 Volumes, the vast majority of
which are Catholic authors and mystics.
57 Catholic moral theology is divided into four major areas. (1) Introductory works (e.g. William E. May An
Introduction to Moral Theology – OSV Press), (2) Catholic bioethics and medical ethics (e.g. William E. May
Catholic Bioethics and Gift of Human Life – OSV Press), (3) Catholic social ethics and social teaching (e.g.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2005 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church –USCCB
Publishing—now free on the web--
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_comp
endio-dott-soc_en.html), and (4) Catholic business ethics (e.g. Andrew Abela 2014 A Catechism for Business –CUA
Press).
58 See for example The New Catholic Encyclopedia—2nd ed., 15 vols. (Gale Research).
59 St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:2. Translation by Robert Schihl and Paul Flanagan in “Post-Apostolic Fathers of
the Church” in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2476599/posts?page=1
60 For a summary of the Principles, see Robert Spitzer 2011 Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life
Issues (San Francisco: Ignatius Press). pp.21-118. For a compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, see The
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2005 Compendium of The Social Doctrine of the Church (USCCB Press).
ethics.61 There is nothing like this development, systemization, and socio-political application of
moral thought in any other religion in world history. This again shows the action of the Holy
Spirit in the life of the Church.
3. Intellectual life -- The Catholic Church applied Christian religious and theological thought to
virtually every area of science and the humanities.
o With respect to science, Catholic clergy made invaluable contributions to the development of the
modern scientific method (Bishop Robert Grosseteste and Friar Roger Bacon), astronomy
(Nicholas Copernicus – a Catholic cleric and the father of heliocentrism), biology-genetics (Abbott
Gregor Mendel – the father of quantitative genetics), geology (Bishop Nicolas Steno – the father
of contemporary geology and stratigraphy), and astrophysics-cosmology (Monsignor Georges
Lemaître—the father of the Big Bang Theory) – to mention but a few.62
o With respect to philosophy (St. Augustine, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St.
Bonaventure, Fr. Duns Scotus, St. Edith Stein, Jacques Maritain, Fr. Joseph Marechal, Elizabeth
Anscombe, Fr. Bernard Lonergan, Fr. Emerich Coreth, Fr. Karl Rahner, Josef Pieper, Gabriel
Marcel, and Fr. John Courtney Murray) provided the foundation and development of realist
transcendental metaphysics, theodicy, virtue ethics, personalist phenomenology, integrated realist
epistemology and ontology, and natural law and natural rights theory.
o With respect to literature (St. Augustine, Dante Alighieri, Hildegard of Bingen, Fr. Desiderius
Erasmus, St. John Henry Newman, Fr. Gerard Manley Hopkins, G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc,
Evelyn Waugh, François Mauriac, J.R.R. Tolkien, T.S. Eliot (Anglo-Catholic), Graham Greene,
Dorothy Day, Flannery O’Connor, and Walker Percy — among others) made valuable
contributions to the integration of theology/spirituality with literature.
With respect to music and the fine arts, there are literally hundreds of Catholic artists,
musicians, and architects who made thousands of contributions to sacred art, architecture, and
music. A brief perusal of the websites devoted to sacred art, architecture, and music should
provide significant testimony of the strong inspiration of the Holy Spirit to sacred beauty. With
respect to music, the Catholic Church was responsible for much of the development of Western
music, including Monophonic Hymns (Gregorian Chant), musical notation (Guido of Arezzo),
polyphonic choral pieces (with 40-50 voices), and the structure underlying contemporary hymns,
masses, and operas. Several priests were composers of sacred music (e.g. Antonio Vivaldi and
Tomas de Victoria). With respect to architecture, Catholics developed Byzantine, Romanesque,
Gothic, High Gothic, Renaissance, High Renaissance, and Baroque architectural styles,
constructing hundreds of churches and basilicas throughout the world. With respect to art, the
Church developed several forms of iconography, the invention of one-point linear perspective by
Brunelleschi, and three-dimensional realism by Giotto. The church also provided hundreds of
painters and sculptors whose works may be found in every major museum throughout the world,
including, Fra Angelico, da Vinci, Lippi, Raphael, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, and Bernini (to
61 For a summary of Catholic medical ethics, see William E. May Catholic Bioethics and Gift of Human Life (OSV
Press). For a summary of Catholic business ethics, see Andrew Abela 2014 A Catechism for Business (CUA Press).
62 See the “List of Catholic clergy scientists” in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_cleric-
scientists. This article puts another 100 Catholic priests and clerics at the forefront of natural science.
mention but a few). Many priests and brothers were involved in artistic productions including
Brother (Fra) Angelico (Dominican), Father Filippo Lippi (Carmelite), Brother Andreas Pozzo
(Jesuit), as well as dozens of priests and brothers in the Dominican, Franciscan, Carmelite, and
Jesuit orders).63
The above five benefits of the Catholic Church (the Holy Eucharist, the authenticity of
doctrinal truth, Church unity, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the uniquely deep and
complex development and application of spirituality, moral and ethical thought, and intellectual
life) build a strong foundation of grace for our pathway to eternal life with Christ. As noted
above, no other church or religious tradition provides these benefits which clearly manifest the
grace and love of Christ as well as the power, inspiration, and guidance of the Holy Spirit. They
are worth serious consideration, not only for our personal edification and development, but also
to provide the best path and access to our eternal salvation with the Triune God—Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit.
IV.
Controversial Issues in the Catholic Church
We are all aware of the sad reality of scandals in the Church today. They are certainly not
new. They go back to the time of Jesus Himself when one of His own disciples, Judas Iscariot,
betrayed him. Since that time, priests, bishops, and even a few popes have been involved in
lifestyles and actions which Jesus and Church teaching explicitly condemned. How can Catholic
clergy, religious, and lay ministers engage in such behaviors when they profess to be disciples of
Jesus? In a phrase—we have freedom.
If God is to elevate us beyond mere robotic programming, He must give us the power to
choose freely. If we are not free to choose evil, then we are also not free to choose good, but only
programmed by God to do the good. God wants our good acts to originate from within us (not
simply from His programming) and so He gives us the ability to choose freely which means the
ability to choose between good and evil. Since God wants us to be free, He will not force us to do
good or interfere with our freedom to do evil, but rather, respect it. Instead of preventing people
from doing evil, God permits them to do their freely chosen will. (What God does do is work
through good people who freely choose to counteract the evil of others by courageous action,
heroic good, and love.)
So everyone, in and outside of the Church, can and does sin. And yet, though there has
always been sin among members of the Church, the child sex abuse crisis of the late 20th century
was a uniquely evil phenomenon occurring within the Church. This evil took place mainly
between the mid 1960s and mid 1980s, but is now almost “a thing of the past” due to significant
changes in the Catholic church (see below). It involved abuse of minors by preists as well as the
cover-up of this abuse by some Bishops who, instead of reporting the abuser priests to the
criminal authorities, tried to make the problem go away by moving the priest on to a different
parish role, or on to a counselling clinic where the priest would receive therapy, or both. The
actions of these Bishops were disastrous—wheather unintended or not
63 See the websites devoted to art and architecture in the Dominican, Franciscan, Carmelite, and Jesuit traditions.
Though the vast majority of people who pursue noble professions—such as religion,
education, medicine, law enforcement, legal defense, government, social work, and even
parenting—remain faithful to their moral obligations and commitments, there is a minority who
pursue these professions with ulterior motives or inherent weaknesses that make them vulnerable
to moral decline and even depravity. This means there will likely be scandals in all noble
professions—even the ones who profess the highest commitments to morality, social
responsibility, and religion. Scandals occur because some people will freely choose to abrogate
their commitments and moral responsibility, while others act out of compulsions arising out of
sexual abuse and violence during their childhood and/or adolescence. For example, boys who
experienced maternal neglect, domestic violence, and/or sexual abuse are three times more likely
to abuse young victims than the normal population.64
Exactly how bad was the sex abuse crisis in the Church? It needs to be said at the outset
that even a single, isolated case of a priest abusing a child is a most outrageous act of evil against
the victim and a most outrageous betrayal of the God-given priestly vocation by the perpetrator.
To answer the initial question, we must make recourse to statistics from reliable sources. We will
look primarily at studies from the United States, where a lot of the best data is to be found, but
also at studies from Ireland.
Sexual abusers are found in every walk of life including the above noble professions. One of
life’s saddest ironies is that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by parents – the ones
who are most intimately trusted. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports the
following: 80% of all abuse of children and teenagers is done by parents, 6% by other family
members, 5% by others (from siblings to strangers), and 4% by unmarried partners of a parent.65
Strangers are responsible for about 3.5% of all child and adolescent abuse, which includes
clergy, teachers, coaches, youth workers, doctors, social workers, and police. Within this 3.5%,
teachers are about 100 times more likely to abuse children or adolescents than priests66 (though
media reports tend not to give this impression67).
Comparable data from Ireland tends to relate more to historical abuse cases (i.e., taking
place in the past). Because of this, and because of the different social context in Ireland where
there were proportionately far more priests than in the United States, these figures paint a
64 See Arnon Bentovim 2003 “Development of sexually abusive behaviour in sexually victimized males: a
longitudinal study” The Lancet February 8, 2003 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-
6736(03)12466-X/fulltext
65 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. Child Maltreatment Survey, 2016 (2018). See the summary in RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) 2018 “Children and Teens: Statistics” in https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens
66 Charol Shakeshaft 2004 “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature” in U.S. Department of
Education Office of the Undersecretary, https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
see also Caroline Hendrie 2004 “Sexual Abuse by Educators Is Scrutinized” in Education Week, March 10, 2004
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2004/03/10/26abuse.h23.html
67 See Marshall Connolly 2019 “Is there an epidemic of child abuse by Catholic clergy?” in Catholic Online
https://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=81831
somewhat different picture. So the Irish figure is higher: roughly 3.5% of minors who were
sexually abused in Ireland in the past (i.e., generally from the 1990s backwards) were abused by
priests or other religious clergy.68 Even here, though, a very clear majority of cases of sex abuse
of minors are not committed by priests (96.5%). So while abuse by priests is more reprehensible
than abuse by, e.g., teachers (because of priests’ Christianvocation), priests are responsible for a
much smaller percentage of the total abuse of children and adolescents than many people may
think.
On this last point the following is worth considering. In terms of the percentage of priests
accused of being sexual abusers, which is a distinct matter from the percentage of abuse victims
who were abused by priests, that figure stands at approximately 4% according to data from the
U.S.69 It is likely a roughly similar figure for Ireland70 . Clearly these are deeply troubling
statistics, but research in Ireland also indicates that the general public tends to seriously over-
estimate the percentage of abusive clergy. To illustrate the point, 42% of the general public think
that at least 21% of priests actually are sex abusers (and 27% of this cohort of the general public
think that more than 40% of priests actually are sex abusers).71
It is also worth bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of clerical child abuse
cases date from between the mid 1960s to the mid 1980s. This specific timeframe accounts for
the overwhelming majority of the 4% of priests who have been accused of abuse in the U.S..
Child abuse by priests is now almost totally a thing of the past. This is in part due to
improvements made by the Church in terms of reporting, safeguarding children, and training
priests.
The Catholic Church has made enormous progress in eradicating child sexual abuse in recent
years. Prior to 1985, very little was done to screen out candidates predisposed to abusing
children. Significant changes were made both in 1985 and 2002 to remedy this which has proven
to be very effective (e.g., psychological screening). Prior to 2002, just under 4% of Catholic
clergy in the U.S. were accused of abuse of adolescents/pubescent children (one-quarter of one
68 See H McGee et al., “The SAVI Report: Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland” (Liffey Press, 2002),
http://epubs.rcsi.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=psycholrep.
69 The John Jay study found that approximately 4% of priests were accused of sexual abuse in the United States, and
of that, approximately 5% were involved in the sexual abuse of prepubescent children (pedophilia). Therefore,
approximately 0.2% (less than one quarter of one percent) of priests in the U.S. were accused of the sexual abuse of
prepubescent children. See John Jay Department of Criminal Justice (City University of New York) 2010 “The
Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010”
www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-
Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf
For a summary, see Kathleen McChesney 2011 “What caused the crisis? Key findings of the John Jay College study
on clergy sexual abuse” in America Magazine June 6, 2011
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2011/06/06/what-caused-crisis-key-findings-john-jay-college-study-clergy-
sexual-abuse
70 See Marie Keenan, “Hindsight, Foresight and Historical Judgement: Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic
Church,” in Healy et al. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Irish Criminology (Routledge, 2015), 527.
71 See Amarach Research Report for the Iona Institute, “Attitudes Towards the Catholic Church,” (2011),
https://ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Attitudes%20to%20Church%20poll.pdf. See also,
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/distorted-view-of-abuse-hides-the-real-picture-1.7914
percent (0.2%) were involved in pedophilia,the sexual abuse of prepubescent children).72 Since
2002 (when reforms occurred) there has been a steep decrease in priest abuse accusations. In
2015 through 2017, there were only seven accusations of abuse of minors brought against priests
in the whole U.S. annually. Even this is far too many, but putting it into perspective, the
percentage of priests accused of abuse of minors in the U.S. is a miniscule fraction of one
percent (six-thousandth of one percent) – seven out of 110,000 priests in the United States.73
(Similarly in Ireland, relatively few accusations of clerical abuse are made today, and of those
that are made virtually all concern past, historical abuse and not crimes committed in recent
years.) The recent meetings of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has advocated
greater structures and processes to reduce this number to zero.74 There are similar reforms being
enacted throughout the international Catholic Church (catalyzed by Pope Francis in the February
2019 Summit75) which will enable the worldwide Church to reform its ranks, and approach the
elimination of priestly abuse.
So how might we as Catholics contend with these terrible scandals? First we should not
“sugarcoat” the bad news, but face up to it and continue to seek reforms. At the same time, we
will want to bear in mind that currently over 99% of priests in the U.S. have not been accused of
abuse of minors,76 and we should not paint them with the same brush as those who are abusers.
Though it may be difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the Church in these trying
circumstances, the vast majority of priests, though not perfect, can be trusted to represent the
teaching of Christ faithfully and be good guides to our eternal salvation. We truly need these
guides to help us amidst a culture that calls us away from our transcendent and eternal destiny
with God. Crucially, the sacramental life of the Church, including the sacraments of Eucharist
and Reconciliation, as well as the word of God in the Church, depend on Jesus and his Holy
Spirit – they do not depend on the supposed moral perfection of all priests! No matter how badly
72 The John Jay study found that approximately 4% of priests were accused of sexual abuse in the United States, and
of that, approximately 5% were involved in the sexual abuse of prepubescent children (pedophilia). Therefore,
approximately 0.2% (less than one quarter of one percent) of priests in the U.S. were accused of the sexual abuse of
prepubescent children. See John Jay Department of Criminal Justice (City University of New York) 2010 “The
Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010”
www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-
Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf
For a summary, see Kathleen McChesney 2011 “What caused the crisis? Key findings of the John Jay College study
on clergy sexual abuse” in America Magazine June 6, 2011
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2011/06/06/what-caused-crisis-key-findings-john-jay-college-study-clergy-
sexual-abuse
73 See Center of Applied Research in the Apostolate (Georgetown University) 2018 reported in America Magazine
September 5, 2018.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/09/05/cara-study-indicates-decline-abuse-reports-worst-behind-us
74 See Stephen Beale “Sex-Abuse Crisis: Bishops Press Forward with own Reforms” in National Catholic Register
Feb 8, 2019; http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sex-abuse-crisis-bishops-press-forward-with-own-reforms
75 See anon 2019 “Pope Francis outlines key priorities for February sex abuse summit” in Catholic News Agency
Daily New – see website:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/01/28/pope-francis-outlines-key-priorities-for-february-sex-abuse-
summit/
76 According to the CARA study, only 7 priests per year (out of 110,000 priests) were accused of abusing minors
since 2015 in the U.S. See the summary in America Magazine September 5, 2018.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/09/05/cara-study-indicates-decline-abuse-reports-worst-behind-us
Judas betrayed Jesus and no matter how many times Peter denied Jesus, Jesus still gave his life
for our salvation from sin and death. Similarly, no matter how badly priests and other religious
sin they do not have the power to separate Jesus from his Church. Christ continues to live in the
Church offering his divine life in body, mercy and word so we may have eternal life with Him.
**
Though the scandals make us shrink back in disgust, we do not want to jeopardize our
spiritual life by leaving the Church because of the crimes committed by a very small fraction of
priests accused of abusing minors. Our spiritual health is too important to jeopardize by
abandoning the grace and guidance of the Church given by Jesus.
Would you, for example, stop going to doctors (jeopardizing your physical health)
because you heard about a small fraction of doctors at a few universities in the United States who
were abusing minors?77 Would you stop going to school (jeopardizing your educational future)
because you heard that teachers abuse minors78? Given that the vast majority of priests, teachers,
and doctors are not abusing minors, we should prudently continue to pursue our spiritual health
through the Church, our physical health through physicians, and our educational future through
teachers. Just as we should judge doctors by the majority of truly dedicated physicians, and
teachers by the noble members of their profession, we should also judge the Church by her saints
(holy men and women) rather than her sinners.
We might put the latter point in context by calling to mind the statistics about the Church
noted above in Section I. The Catholic Church today is by far the largest international public
educational system (43,800 secondary schools and 95,200 primary schools), healthcare system
(26% of all worldwide healthcare facilities and hospitals), and public welfare system (e.g.,
15,722 homes for the elderly, chronically ill and disabled, 9,552 orphanages, 13,897 marriage
counseling centers, 11,758 nurseries).79 The vast majority of the individuals working at these
institutions do so out of love of neighbor and the Lord as well as a desire to help those in need.
These Church organizations involve hundreds of thousands of unheralded “saints” – priests,
deacons, sisters, brothers, and laity -- who are making a huge positive difference to the world and
its future. When you judge the Church, and your future in it, you may first want to look at the
huge numbers and example of these saints before looking at the much smaller numbers of those
who have not lived up to their faith and vocation.
So what else might we do in the face of these scandals? First, trust in Christ’s promise to
St. Peter that “The gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church.” As previously noted by
Arnold Toynbee (the great historian of culture and civilization):
77 Physicians at Michigan State (U.S. Olympic physician, Dr. Larry Nassar), as well as University of California Los
Angeles (Dr. Guillermo Cortes), and University of Southern California (Dr. George Tyndall) have been found guilty
(or are under indictment) for the sexual abuse of many of their young patients.
78 See Charol Shakeshaft 2004 “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature” in U.S.
Department of Education Office of the Undersecretary,
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf
79 The sources for these statistics are given above in Section I.
The Church in its traditional form thus stands forth armed with the spear of the
Mass, the shield of the Hierarchy, and the helmet of the Papacy…and the divine
intention…of this heavy panoply of institutions in which the Church has clad
herself is the very practical one of outlasting the toughest of the secular
institutions of this world, including all the civilizations.80
If Toynbee is correct then Christ has kept his promise. So stay in the Church, pray for the
Church, work to remove all sin from the Church, trust in Christ, and follow the lead of the
Church and her Saints into the Salvation promised by Him.
So when you come across opinions implying that the Church has done more harm than
good, put them into context for yourself and others. Bring to mind that the world is much better
off for the Church’s existence than it would have been without her. Recall that for 2,000 years
the church has been the largest worldwide provider of health care, education, and public welfare
(see the above statistics). Furthermore, the Church has transformed worldwide culture—
confronting the atrocities of Rome (e.g., the butchery of the Coliseum) and gradually eliminating
ancient slavery as well as first articulating and promoting human rights,81 fundamental human
equality,82 and social justice,83 among many, many other achievements.84
Thirdly, recall the 6 benefits of the Church mentioned above—for example:
● The power and love of the Holy Eucharist uniting us to Christ’s risen body and thus
allowing us to participate in the eternal life of God
● The power and healing of the Sacrament of Confession, giving complete absolution from
all our sins, converting our hearts, and thus allowing us back into full relationship with
Jesus.
● The guidance and unity provided by the Church Magisterium (given through Christ’s
promise to Peter) to protect us from self-deception, the deception of others, and the
undermining of the Church community (the Mystical Body of Christ), which keeps us
safely on the road to salvation.
● The power and love of three other Sacraments—Baptism, Confirmation, and the
Sacrament of the sick which provide the graces, inspiration, guidance and protection of
the Holy Spirit, which also vouchsafe our path to eternal salvation.
80 Arnold Toynbee 1948 “Christianity and Civilization” in Civilization on Trial (Oxford University Press)
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/toynbee.html.
81 Gratian to Aquinas to Francisco Suarez leading to, eventually, Jacques Maritain and Charles Malik (Greek
Orthodox) [Grotius and Locke were Protestant]**** [I haven’t suggested a finalized text here]
82 On this, and on Christianity’s more general, massively positive influence on the world, see, e.g., Larry
Siedentop. Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Harvard University Press, 2014), Tom
Holland, Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (Little and Brown, 2019), Thomas E. Woods, How the
Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Regnery History, 2005), and Rodney Stark, Bearing False Witness:
Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History (Templeton Press, 2016).
83 Term first coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli … St. Augustine on an unjust law is no law at all. [I haven’t
suggested a finalized text here]
84 See, e.g., texts cited in footnote 86.
● The special graces of our vocation in life given through either the Sacrament of Marriage
or Holy Orders.
● The spiritual, intellectual, aesthetic, and liturgical ethos that lifts our soul out of the
mundane dimensions of popular culture to the glory, wisdom and love of God who is
perfect truth, love, goodness, beauty and being. This ethos is constituted by theology,
philosophy, and spirituality, intersecting with religious art, music, and architecture as
well as the transcendent aspects of all the sciences and liberal arts.
These benefits of the Catholic Church lead not only to the perfect joy of eternal life with
Christ, but also to transcendent joy in this life—the joy of the Sacraments, the Saints, prayer, the
beauty of religious art and music, the church community and the faith, family, and friendships
they inspire. This life of joy amidst challenge is worth the time and energy we invest in the
Church Jesus gave to us. Be patient with her, defend the truth of her transcendence and holiness,
and when some of her subjects fail, call them to the teaching of Jesus. You will never regret it.
Indeed, she will help transform your life into a most unexpected beauty and glory.
V.
Conclusion
Is the Church built upon the foundation of St. Peter and his successors really the one
Church instituted, guided and protected by Jesus Christ to be the surest pathway to our salvation?
Given the above evidence from Scripture about the authenticity of Jesus’ commission of Peter
and his successors to have ultimate teaching and juridical authority, the self-understanding of the
early Popes and Bishops, the persistent historical unity of the Church (despite many contentious
moments), our need for an authentic interpretation of scripture, the unswerving proclamation of
the reality of Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist, our deep need for the sacrament of
reconciliation, the richness of spirituality, moral and political theory, and the integration of
theology with all natural disciplines, there is considerable rational and experiential evidence of
the Spirit of Christ working through the Catholic Church.
Though some leaders and individuals in the Church did not adhere to the moral teachings
of Christ over the last 2000 years, the Church did not succumb to their influence, but rather,
rectified them through its authentic teaching and juridical authority. Generation after generation,
the Church corrected and moved beyond these bad influences, through the remarkable love and
faith manifest through her authentic leaders, thousands of canonized saints and the religious
movements they inspired.85
As John Henry Newman might say, there is more than enough evidence throughout 2,000
years of history to justify reasonable and responsible belief that the Catholic Church is the
85 Alban Butler 1956 Butler’s Lives of the Saints (2nd edition) 4 vols. Ed. by Herbert J. Thurston and Donald
Attwater (New York: Christian Classics).
authentic Church of Jesus Christ and is the surest path to our salvation.86 Given this, why would
we not want to bring the spiritual power and love of the Catholic Church into our lives?
86 According to Newman, an informal inference occurs when multiple antecedently and independently probable
sources of data corroborate and complement one another. See John Henry Newman 2013, An Essay in Aid of a
Grammar of Assent (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press) pp. 189-215.