THAT LYING BIBLE

The author of Saint Peter’s Second Epistle was not Saint Peter, at least according to the American Council of Catholic Bishops.

In their introduction to 2Peter in the New American Bible, they state:

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter…

The bishops list numerous reasons why 2Peter could not have been written by the Apostle Peter.

In the first chapter, the author of 2Peter claims to speak with authority because he, the author, was there with Jesus at the “transfiguration” described in Matthew 17.

The epistle-writer says:

16 We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased."
18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain.

Clearly, the statements in boldface are outright lies.

That the Catholic Church at some historical point included 2Peter in the official Bible (which is the Word of God) could be seen as some sort of honest mistake.

The Church’s continued inclusion of this bogus, lying document as the word of God hurts the Church’s claim of authenticity, let alone honesty.

2Peter addresses the” scoffers.”

The early Church’s belief that the second coming would happen in their lifetimes was a gigantic misunderstanding. The people, apostles and such, who were actually there, living and traveling and talking with Jesus, completely misunderstood his promise to return soon.

How much else of Jesus’ preaching was misunderstood?

Per the statue pictured above (click on image for source) St Peter had a great physique with a nice net. But he did not write 2Peter.

----- o -----

BILL OF PARTICULARS

A new conservative blog, Reforming the Jesuits, has emerged.

It’s first post, Why Do You Think the Jesuits Need Reformed [sic], is a nifty bill of particulars, beginning with someone named Bollard who

told interviewers on "60 Minutes" that during his seven years as a Jesuit, at least 12 priests made unwelcome sexual advances and invited him to cruise gay bars.

Presumably Bollard’s complaint to Provincial John Privett, S.J. was that 12 advances in 7 years was too many. Others in formation might find such numbers disappointingly low. It’s difficult to satisfy everyone.

Conservative blogs such as Good/Bad and RtJ provide much fodder for Jesuit Watch.

We all see discrepancies between policy and practice.

As an example, it’s the policy of the RCC and by extension the Jesuits that homosexual acts are sinful, yet, in practice, many Jesuits are actively homosexual.

Conservatives want the Jesuits to change their practices to make them comply with their policy. These folks want the clergy purged of all practicing homosexuals.

Liberals, including this blog, want the Jesuits to bring their policy into conformance with their practice. We want the RCC and by extension the Jesuits to proclaim that gay sex is licit and potentially sacramental.

The church faces danger if it moves in either direction. Thus, the status f*cked-up quo.

Interesting about Reforming the Jesuits is it’s author, Roberto Bellarmino, “Born in 1542 in Montepulciano, Italy.”

----- o -----

MORE BIBLE BABBLE

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished

from the false and profane writings on which

all other faiths are based.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

A gay softball teammate one time mentioned that he had been a Catholic seminarian. He said it was mostly the stupid internal politics, corruption, and general nastiness that drove him away.

Somehow I mentioned the Bible and he said the seminarians were discouraged from reading it, let alone considering it. The only purpose of the Bible, they were told, was to legitimize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Here in the United States we associate Bible-reading with religious wrongheadedness.

If you open the Bible randomly there’s no telling what kind of garbage you might come up with—snake handling, speaking in tongues, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Second Coming, polygamy, child sacrifice, the list goes on and on.

Take the Fugitive Slave Act (please). Paul’s epistle to Philemon supports what must be God’s law: that runaway slaves should be returned to their masters. Oh, he also says that Philemon should treat the slave well—wink, wink.

(Is there a sex angle here? Did Paul like women at all? Do you suppose he ever really “got it on” with anyone?)

I love the American bishops’ explanation in their New American Bible. Of Paul:

He does not attack slavery directly, for this is something the Christian communities of the first century were in no position to do, and the expectation that Christ would soon come again militated against social reforms.

This might explain the fugitive slave thing but it points out a much more glaring discrepancy: the early church thought that the second coming of Jesus would happen in their lifetime or shortly thereafter.

They thought that Jesus had promised this to them.

They were completely wrong.

As silly as the Millerites.

Was there some miscommunication?

And what about slavery? Was it ok then, but wrong now?

See, kiddies, don’t open the Bible, it will only confuse you.

----- o -----

CHINA LEADS THE WAY

Two men were ordained bishops in China yesterday. These men were not selected by the pope. According to this CNS story, however, the pope approves:

The Vatican newspaper indicated that both ordinations had been carried out with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI. The local Catholic communities, who elected the bishops, had indicated to the Vatican that they were worthy candidates, the newspaper said.

If Catholic communities in China can elect their own bishops, why not communities in Europe and America, too?

The whole totalitarian, monarchical, hierarchical structure of the church is a little passé. Countries organized that way are called dictatorships.

A true democrat would tell any silk-slippered potentate to kiss his own damn ring.

----- o -----

KEEP GIVING, FOLKS

As the total US priest sex abuse payouts, cumulative from 1950, pass $2 Billion, we are seeing more and more reports of financial crime within the RCC.

Right wing commentators point to mutual blackmail contributing to the administrative coverup of the priest sex crimes, but the blackmail need not be sexual.

Evidence that a superior has been embezzling could protect a priest sex offender from exposure.

This story from the Darien News-Review is way creepy. Although blackmail isn't mentioned, someone must have known. Lead:

The Rev. Michael Jude Fay, who resigned last year as pastor of St. John's Roman Catholic Church after he allegedly stole at least $1.4 million in parish funds, pleaded guilty yesterday to a federal fraud charge.

Somehow the faithful keep donating. I guess that’s why they’re called “faithful.”

----- o -----

TSK, TSK

So some Jesuit universities are shilling for student-loan lenders—what’s the big deal? Lots of universities around the nation have been caught doing the same thing. There’s no reason to expect better from the Jesuits, is there?

According to this story in Fairfield University’s student newspaper, the Mirror,

Late this summer, it was reported that Fairfield, as well as two other Connecticut colleges, had an agreement with The College Board, Inc. to make the company one of its preferred loan providers in return for thousands of dollars in software discounts.

This is another example of the cryptic nature of Catholic moral theology. The sum total of the two testaments plus two millenia of explication couldn’t help the padres at Fairfield figure out if bribery was ok. But not to worry:

Though the University admits to no wrongdoing, it agreed to follow a financial aid code of conduct to prevent similar scandals in the future.

Gotta prevent those scandals!

----- o -----

HEAVENLY BODIES

Admission to one’s eternal reward is instantaneous upon death. One’s soul goes immediately into the presence of God, or to H – E – double hockeysticks.

But wait, there’s more (as if there need be). At the end of the world, our bodies will be resurrected and reunited with our souls and earth will be transformed. We’ll walk around and experience things the way we did in mortal life, except everything will be really, really great. And the people in hell will have physical as well as emotional torment.

So, where exactly is Jesus’ body right now? He ascended, but where? Physical, bodily heaven awaits the end of the world.

And where is Mary’s body. It was “assumed” into… where?

So there are two human bodies floating around up there somewhere, keeping each other company.

Do they long for additional human biomass to join them?

“Selflessness” is a tough little paradox.

----- o -----