Catholic Replies
Q. I know that we are supposed to welcome the stranger, to reach out to those refugees who are coming to our shores, but shouldn’t there be some prudential judgment involved since not all persons seeking entry into America are legitimate refugees? — Name and State Withheld.
A. Of course, and Fr. George W. Rutler, pastor of the Church of St. Michael in New York City, made the distinction in a recent column.
He first listed some of the “genuine heroes” — Charles Martel, Richard the Lionhearted, St. Louis IX, Janos Hunyadi, St. John of Capistrano, Don Juan of Austria, Andrea Doria, St. Pius V, and Jan Sobieski — in the centuries-old battle against radical Islam and said that “if some of these names are now obscure, that is the fault of those who do not appreciate how, if any one of them had failed, our world would be far more miserable today and its institutions unrecognizable, and it is entirely possible that none of us would be alive.”
Fr. Rutler wrote that “Europe and, to an increasing extent, our own country are experiencing waves of Islamic immigrants who are not welcome in some of their own lands. Mohammed is the most popular name for boys in London now, and Arabic is the fastest-growing language in the United States. Honest and needy refugees expect the Christian welcome that the Gospel enjoins, for no one is foreign to Christ.
“But the spiritual gift of discernment should distinguish the immigrant from the invader, and there is palpable evidence that some people of ill will pretend to be refugees when in fact they are of the ilk that Charles Martel and all those other real heroes confronted.”
Q. A friend of mine seems to feel the Episcopal Church has some legitimacy as an equal to the Roman Catholic Church as the Church that Jesus founded. He reads a lot about the development of the one, true Church and feels that since the Mass in both is so close and since there were two Popes that excommunicated each other, that there was legitimacy extended to both Popes. I tried to explain that there can only be one Pontiff to head the one, true Church of Christ. I’m not sure when this was to have happened. Could you please give me the history of this so that I may be able to clarify it for him? Thank you. — M.G., Ohio.
A. You can find this situation, which was known as the Great Western Schism, explained in Patrick Madrid’s book Pope Fiction, pp. 163-166. Briefly, what happened was that Pope Clement V moved the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France, in 1305 because of the violent atmosphere in Rome. Seventy years later, Pope Gregory XI moved the papacy back to Rome and, when he died in 1378, Urban VI was elected Supreme Pontiff. However, his acerbic temperament caused some of his former supporters to choose as his replacement one Robert of Geneva, who became the anti-pope Clement VII and who took up residence in Avignon.
There was considerable animosity between the two men, resulting in mutual excommunications and a raging debate throughout Europe as to who was the legitimate Successor of Peter. Both claimants eventually died and their successors continued the rift, which became more complicated in 1409 when a council meeting in Pisa elected another anti-pope, John XXIII. The chaotic situation was finally resolved at the Council of Constance in 1414. Gregory XII, the real Pope, abdicated the papacy, while both John XXIII and Benedict XIII were removed from their sees, after which a new Pope, Martin V, who was accepted by all sides, was elected and the schism came to an end.
The point to emphasize to your Episcopal friend is that while three men claimed to be Pope at the same time, there was never more than one Pope. In the words of Patrick Madrid:
“The papacy never left Rome. Even though Urban VI was an unpleasant fellow and, perhaps, a difficult person to work with, he was nevertheless the legitimate successor to Peter. Likewise, his successors, Boniface IX, Innocent II, and Gregory XII, all had the legitimate title to the papacy. Just because other parties claimed to be popes doesn’t mean they actually were popes….The essential thing is to follow the pedigree of succession. Only then will you be sure to follow the true Vicar of Christ.”
You might also tell your friend that the failings and sinful actions of Popes and other members of the Church down through the centuries do not mean that Jesus did not found the Catholic Church or promise to be with it all days until the end of the world. In fact, as someone has pointed out, only a Church with divine guidance and protection could have survived the human plots and peccadilloes that have plagued the Church from the beginning.
Q. When Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden ate of the tree of good and evil, was the Devil in the serpent? Also, was this sin after Satan was driven out of Heaven by St. Michael the Archangel? Since I believe God is not subject to time, could these events by Adam and Eve and the war in Heaven happen at the same time? If Satan never rebelled, would mankind still be in Eden? — D.H., via e-mail.
A. First of all, Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan, who appeared in the form of a serpent, to disobey God in the Garden of Eden. Their sin of disobedience was prompted by the sin of pride, the attitude that they knew better than God what was right and wrong. Recall that Satan had promised them that if they ate the fruit from the tree of good and evil, “you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad” (Gen. 3:4).
The angels in Heaven who rebelled against God were also prompted by the sin of pride in that they refused to serve God any longer and were cast out of Heaven. Their punishment was more severe than that of Adam and Eve because they were highly intelligent beings who knew exactly what they were doing in rebelling against God. There was none of the confusion or ignorance that often leads humans to sin. Some Fathers of the Church have suggested that the bad angels, who were far superior to humans, were jealous of God’s plan to have Jesus take on human form to redeem the human race.
Second, while God is outside of time and sees all of human history at once, human history itself is inside time, with events following one upon another down through the centuries. So the war in Heaven preceded the creation of the world and the fall of Adam and Eve.
Third, if Satan had not rebelled against God, and had not tempted Adam and Eve, or had our first parents said no to the temptation, we would be living in an Eden-like world. However, the Church has called original sin the “happy fault” of Adam because it brought into a fallen world our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whose death and Resurrection have made possible for all who follow Him faithfully an eternal glory in Heaven that will be far greater than life in the Garden of Eden.
Q. A friend of mine is puzzled by two incidents in chapter five of the Acts of the Apostles. He doesn’t understand why Barnabas should be praised for selling property and turning over the proceeds to the apostles, while Ananias and Sapphira are put to death for apparently the same thing. Can you explain this? — C.L., Massachusetts.
A. The difference between the two incidents is that while Barnabas sold a piece of property and laid all the proceeds at the feet of the apostles, Ananias and Sapphira secretly retained some of the proceeds from their sale, but tried to give the appearance that they had shared everything. Some people are horrified at the punishment of the couple because it paints a harsh picture of God.
But people who think this way have a tendency to minimize the gravity of sin and to excuse sinful actions for various psychological or sociological reasons. The truth is that there are serious sins that can have devastating consequences, such as the loss of Heaven.
The sin of Ananias and Sapphira, said St. Peter, was not just that they deceived the community, but that they lied to the Holy Spirit. They implied that God is not all-knowing and that He can be deceived. In other words, that God is not God. The ironic thing is that Ananias was under no obligation to sell his property or to share the proceeds with the apostles. As Peter said, their land was their own and could be disposed of any way they wished. But their attempt to gain the plaudits of the community amounted to hypocrisy, a sin that Jesus often severely condemned (cf. Matt. 23:13-33).
