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.