Bill O'Reilly: The Gospels are wrong but MY word is inspired by the Holy Spirit

Bill O'Reilly, in an interview with CBS, claims that the Holy Spirit inspired his book entitled 'Killing Jesus" even as he attempts to "correct the Gospels.  When confronted with such an arrogant approach to God's Word, the Fathers of the Church responded in no uncertain terms:

"They have not feared to lay hands upon the sacred Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them. Nor is it likely that they themselves are ignorant of how very bold their offense is. For either they do not believe that the sacred Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, in which case they are unbelievers, or if they regard themselves as being wiser than the Holy Spirit, what else can they be but demoniacs." (St. Hippolytus of Rome, "Fragment" in Eusebius, History of the Church, 5, ch. 28)

In his book, Bill advances the idea that Jesus could not have spoken the words, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" because the way he was hung on the cross would not have allowed enough air in His lungs to speak them audibly."  Bill also refers to Jesus as "the guy" in his interview with CBS.

The problem with Bill's argument should be immediately obvious to even the most unastute who spend even a modicum of time with Sacred Scripture.  In Matthew 27: 46-48, we read: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'  And some of the bystanders hearing it said, 'This man is calling Elijah.'  And one of them [because Jesus said "I thirst," Jn 19:28] at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink."

If Jesus couldn't speak audibly to pronounce the words "Father forgive them...," how could He speak these other words audibly?  The words "I thirst" were among His last spoken words from the cross.  Apparently Bill would reject the authoritative teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well:

"When the hour had come for him to fulfill the Father's plan of love, Jesus allows a glimpse of the boundless depth of his filial prayer, not only before he freely delivered himself up ("Abba . . . not my will, but yours."), but even in his last words on the Cross, where prayer and the gift of self are but one: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"; "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise", "Woman, behold your son" - "Behold your mother"; "I thirst."; "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"; "It is finished"; "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!"until the "loud cry" as he expires, giving up his spirit." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2605).

Perhaps Bill should retitle his book "Killing Common Sense"?

Pope Francis: God will forgive atheists who obey their conscience

Pope Francis, referring to atheists who refuse to believe in God, His Commandments and His Church, recently said, "God forgives those who obey their conscience."  See here.

 Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, explains that: "Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council [Vatican II] puts it, 'not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin.'" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 62, citing Gaudium et Spes, 16).

Pope John Paul II continues: "Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes....Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, 'when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good.." (VS, Nos. 62, 63, citing Gaudium et Spes, 16).

How then can Pope Francis issue a blanket statement declaring that God will forgive all atheists who obey their conscience?

Some years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, during his Keynote Address of the Fourth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Moral Theology Today: Certitudes and Doubts," which was delivered in February of 1984, had this to say: "In the Psalms we meet from time to time the prayer that God should free man from his hidden sins. The Psalmist sees as his greatest danger the fact that he no longer recognizes them as sins and thus falls into them in apparently good conscience. Not being able to have a guilty conscience is a sickness...And thus one cannot aprove the maxim that everyone may always do what his conscience allows him to do: In that case the person without a conscience would be permitted to do anything. In truth it is his fault that his conscience is so broken that he no longer sees what he as a man should see. In other words, included in the concept of conscience is an obligation, namely, the obligation to care for it, to form it and educate it. Conscience has a right to respect and obedience in the measure in which the person himself respects it and gives it the care which its dignity deserves. The right of conscience is the obligation of the formation of conscience. Just as we try to develop our use of language and we try to rule our use of rules, so must we also seek the true measure of conscience so that finally the inner word of conscience can arrive at its validity. For us this means that the Church's magisterium bears the responsibility for correct formation. It makes an appeal, one can say, to the inner vibrations its word causes in the process of the maturing of conscience. It is thus an oversimplification to put a statement of the magisterium in opposition to conscience. In such a case I must ask myself much more. What is it in me that contradicts this word of the magisterium? Is it perhaps only my comfort? My obstinacy? Or is it an estrangement through some way of life that allows me something which the magisterium forbids and that appears to me to be better motivated or more suitable simply because society considers it reasonable? It is only in the context of this kind of struggle that the conscience can be trained, and the magisterium has the right to expect that the conscience will be open to it in a manner befitting the seriousness of the matter. If I believe that the Church has its origins in the Lord, then the teaching office in the Church has a right to expect that it, as it authentically develops, will be accepted as a priority factor in the formation of conscience."

In the same address, Cardinal Ratzinger explains that, "Conscience is understood by many as a sort of deification of subjectivity, a rock of bronze on which even the magisterium is shattered....Conscience appears finally as subjectivity raised to the ultimate standard."

If forgiveness will be extended to all who reject the Gospel in favor of their own erroneous conscience, how then do we explain the words of Our Lord in Matthew 10: 14: "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city."