Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Father James Scahill denies the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ...

Father James Scahill, the dissident priest who has received high praise from the anti-Catholic dissent group Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) and has used his pulpit to level false accusations against the Holy Father, has said that the Catholic Church is "not the church of Jesus Christ" and is "insidiously evil." One cannot help but wonder why he stays then. Of course, in saying that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, Father Scahill is placing himself outside of the Church's communion.

In his Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII explained that "...There is clear and abundant proof in Sacred Scripture that there is one genuine Church of Jesus Christ. All agree on this and no Christian would dare deny it." And Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches us that: "Our divine Redeemer also governs his mystical body in a visible and ordinary way through his vicar on earth..after he himself had ruled the 'little flock' in a visible manner during his mortal pilgrimage, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, Christ our Lord entrusted to the Prince of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. He was all wise; and it was absolutely necessary for him to provide with a visible head the body of the Church he had founded as a human society. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a mystical body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's vicar; so that there is only one chief head of this body, namely Christ. He never ceases personally to guide the Church by an unseen hand, though at the same time he rules it externally, visibly through him who is his representative on earth. After his glorious Ascension into heaven, this Church rests not on him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and his vicar constitute only one head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII, in the Apostolic Letter Unam sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. Therefore, those who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, without giving loyal adherence to his vicar on earth, walk the path of dangerous error. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity, and they so disfigure the true concept of the mystical body of the Redeemer that it cannot be recognized or found by those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation.."

In the same Encyclical Letter, Pope Pius XII describes the Church as a "perfect society." He writes, "..the Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies,; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish.."

But Father Scahill has referred to the Mystical Body of Christ, this "perfect society," as "insidiously evil." And so, Father Scahill has called Christ insidiously evil, for the Church is His Mystical Body. Recall that when Saul was persecuting the Church, Our Lord Jesus came to him and identified Himself as "Jesus whom you are persecuting." (Acts 9: 5). Every attack on the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is an attack on Jesus Himself.
And He has promised to repay each according to his deeds.
Related reading:
Fr. Fessio, S.J., Getting the story straight.


Stewart said...

This priest is a heretic who should be excommunicated. He is an utter disgrace and his attack on Our Lord is demonic.

Michelle said...

This heretic compares the Catholic Church with the mafia, blasphemes Jesus, calls the Church evil, and he's still in ministry. Only in Massachusetts. What a travesty!

Michael Cole said...

By Hilary White

ROME, April 13, 2010

(LifeSiteNews.com) – The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has issued guidelines for procedures in cases of sex abuse by priests, reiterating that local bishops have the first responsibility to protect young people and to monitor the behavior of their priests.

Under the guidelines posted to the Vatican website on Monday, the responsibility to investigate accusations of abuse by clerics is first that of the local diocese. If it is found that an allegation has “semblance of truth,” then the case, with all documentation, is to be referred to the CDF, whose remit sex abuse allegations have been since 2001.

The guidelines, that dealt only with canonical repercussions of sex abuse allegations, also repeated a point that has always been standard Vatican policy, saying, “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.”

The local bishop, however, is still responsible for putting into place measures to protect the community. The CDF notes, “Indeed, the local bishop always retains power to protect children by restricting the activities of any priest in his diocese.”

The CDF says that in “very grave” cases where a priest has already been found guilty in the civil courts, the case may be taken directly to the pope with a request that the priest be automatically dismissed from the clerical state. It notes, “There is no canonical remedy against such a papal decree.”

The note on the responsibilities of local bishops comes amidst the current frenzy of accusations against Pope Benedict, in which it has been repeatedly alleged that he, as the head of the CDF under Pope John Paul II, was personally responsible for covering up or delaying action on cases of clerical abuse that had been proven at the diocesan level. But in each case, closer examination of the facts has shown that there was no Vatican-orchestrated cover-up. Meanwhile, there has been little media censure for the local bishops who bore the initial responsibility for caring for their flocks and monitoring the behavior of their priests.

Many canonists have commented that before 2001, when Pope John Paul gave full authority on sex abuse cases to the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger, the question of who in Rome had jurisdiction over offending priests was vague. But they have pointed out that what has remained constant is the primacy of responsibility of the local bishop. Indeed, the power to remove a priest from the clerical state, to suspend his faculties or remove him from active ministry, has always rested with the local bishop. Many commentators have pointed out that it was the failure of local church authorities to deal competently with the problem that forced the change in procedure at higher levels.

Pope Benedict’s secretary, Msgr. Georg Gänswein told German media today, “It is overlooked too fast that various bishops and bishops’ conferences carry responsibility.”

In the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy of Milwaukee, which was the subject of a sensational report by the New York Times before Easter, it has largely failed to attract the attention of the press that it was the local diocesan authorities, including Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who did not defrock Murphy and did not report the situation to Rome for nearly 20 years. It has, however, been shown that Cardinal Ratzinger acted correctly when he was finally informed of the case.

In the guidelines issued yesterday, the CDF notes that protecting young people is part of the “ordinary authority” of the bishop, “which he is encouraged to exercise to whatever extent is necessary to assure that children do not come to harm.”

It says that the new guidelines are not intended to change the procedures put in place in 2001, according to the 2001 document “Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela,” which gave full authority to the CDF to deal with the sexual abuse crisis.

Amanda said...

I think an exorcist such as Fr. Amorth might quickly come to the conclusion that Fr. Scahill suffers from demonic oppression or worse. Any priest who blasphemes the Lord and His Church as he has would appear to be in spiritual crisis.

Kim said...

I have known Father Scahill for a little over 15 years, and your comments sadden me. If you really knew him you would realize how much Jesus and the Church mean to him.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Yes, Father loves the Church so much that he refers to it (and by extension Christ Jesus since the Church is His Mystical Body) as "insidiously evil" and calumniates the Holy Father. With friends like that who needs enemies?

Father Scahill doesn't deserve an award for integrity. His actions are more akin to those of Judas. He betrays the Church with his infidelity to her teaching and his calumny.

Wendy said...

Kim comes across as something of a cult-follower. She is so blind in her fanaticism that she is unable to see just how hate-filled and truly evil Fr. Scahills's attacks against the Vicar of Christ really are.

Fr. Scahill hates the Church. He compares the Church with the mafia as he calls her "evil" and refuses to defend the Church's teaching relative to marriage.

He is a disgrace and has brought shame to our diocese.

Site Meter