Adam And Eve

 There is an old story (whether apocryphal or not, I can't be certain), which tells of a prominent atheist riding on a train. In the seats just across the aisle from him is an Orthodox rabbi and the rabbi's granddaughter who was about 17 years old. The atheist and the rabbi knew each other and had publicly debated over the existence of God. The atheist always gave the cold shoulder to the rabbi, as he detested anyone who believed in God. Both men were in their early 70s, and they did not acknowledge each other.  During the long train ride, the rabbi's granddaughter made quite the fuss over her grandfather, helping him to and from the bathroom, adjusting his pillow behind his head, asking him if there's anything he needed, and asking how he was feeling. The girl left her grandfather to use the bathroom, and much to the rabbi's surprise, the atheist turned and spoke to him.

"I must admit, rabbi, that your granddaughter is a well-mannered and respectful young lady who really loves you. I'm jealous. My granddaughter is the same age as yours, and she doesn't have the time of day for me. I don't think she even cares if I'm still alive or not." The rabbi replied, "That's the real difference between someone who believes in God and someone who does not!" The atheist, looking perplexed, asked, "What do you mean by that?" The rabbi responded, "When my granddaughter looks at me, she sees someone two generations closer to the wonderful creation of the world by God. When your granddaughter looks at you, she sees someone two generations closer to the monkey." The story, true or not, has at its core a vital lesson: ideas have serious consequences, and our beliefs really do matter.

The world (in general) and Modernists (in particular) try to reduce the truth of the descent of humanity from a single pair of First Parents into a reason to mock religion, especially Christianity. I was a middle school science teacher here in New York City before going to law school. One time, one of my students asked me, point blank, if I believed in Adam and Eve. I simply said, "I do," without further elaboration. The next day, I was called into my principal's office and warned never again to mention "my personal beliefs" in class. I asked if it was OK to respond to that question in the negative. "That's not a belief, that's science." To him, denial of Adam and Eve's existence was "scientific." That's actually scientism (the belief that only science can obtain true knowledge) and not science. As I was not yet tenured, I simply said "OK" and left his office.

Upon completing my Master's Degree in science education and receiving tenure, I submitted a paper to an organization of science teachers in New York and in which I was a dues paying member. My thesis was that there is evidence in nature of a guiding force in Creation (this was before the real advent of the Intelligent Design Movement), and it contained no reference to any religious authorities, just scientific fact and philosophic argumentation. The editor of the journal refused to publish it. When I asked the reason, he would not respond in writing, but called me on the phone. He gave three reasons; (1) it would "confuse our membership" [people with Master's degrees and doctorates? Really?], (2) it's a "national issue" and we only want what's relevant in New York [the origin of life on earth isn't relevant in NY?], and (3) it's "not what we espouse" [that was the only real reason]. I offered to debate him in front of the membership; after all, he had a doctorate in biology and was in his 50s, and I only had just obtained my Master's, being in my 20s. He ended the call, and refused further communication with me. I became the first NYC science teacher to resign his membership from that organization in protest over academic censorship.

When we defend the truth of monogenism from our First Parents, we must steer a careful course between exaggerations and things not taught by the Church, and denying or minimizing essential truths of Faith. This post will set forth Church teaching on this subject, and demonstrate how scientific evidence---even when interpreted by Darwinian scientists-- does nothing to disprove our common descent from Adam and Eve.

What the Church Does and Does NOT Teach regarding Human Origin

Why do the Modernists attack Adam and Eve with such vehemence? Two words: Original Sin. All Catholic dogma must be believed, and if any one is denied, others will begin to tumble down, much like the game dominoes. If there is no Adam and Eve, there is no Original Sin. People are born good, and there is no need for a Redeemer. Christ is called "The Second Adam" precisely because he came to rescue us from the Fall caused by the First Adam. If there is no need of Redemption, Christ and His One True Church are rendered needless at best. The Sacrifice of the Cross was not redemptive, and the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not an unbloody presentation through space and time of the Bloody Sacrifice of Our Suffering Savior. It is now a "celebration of the assembly" and a mere commemoration of the Last Supper (think: Vatican II sect Novus Bogus "mass").  All of this supports the idea that one religion is as good as another, and everyone gets saved ("universalism").

Modernists hate the supernatural, and attacking the historic Adam and Eve is easy game because people ignorantly claim that science has "disproved" such an idea. The truth is also not helped by those who continue to claim that Adam ate "an apple," and other particulars for which there is no support. (Neither the Bible nor Tradition talks about Adam eating an apple). Let's examine what the Church does and does not teach on this subject.

In his encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII teaches:

...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church…

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.  For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.  Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (See para. #36 & 37; Emphasis mine).

The pope did not rule out the creation of the body through evolution and he upheld the necessity of the belief in the immediate creation of the soul by God, as well as the necessary rejection of polygenism. Most Traditionalists will be "scandalized" by the idea that the human body could have been developed over time through a process of evolution. However, Pope Pius XII and the approved theologians saw no problem.

According to theologian Tanquerey:

It is de fide that our first parents in regard to body and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once common, which asserts that even man’s body was formed immediately by God has now fallen into controversy…As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not oppose the origin of the human body from animality…

The opinion which asserts that the human body has arisen from animality through the forces of evolution is not heretical, in fact in can be admitted theologically…

Thesis: The universal human race has arisen from the one first parent Adam.  According to many theologians this statement is proximate to a matter of faith. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:394-398; Emphasis mine).

Theologian Ott says similarly:
The soul of the first man was created immediately by God out of nothing.  As regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty.  Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body…

The Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1950) lays down that the question of the origin of the human body is open to free research by natural scientists and theologians…

Against… the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism).  The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 94-96; Emphasis mine).

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, affirmed that Genesis teaches the following facts about creation which are to be accepted by all Catholics. The decree was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X.

"...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer." (See Acta Apostolis Sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69).

Finally, the basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by the eminent theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original).

From the above we can know the Church teaches us as truth:

• the Creation of the world ex nihil (out of nothing) by God at the beginning of space-time
• the special creation of the First Man
• the special creation of the First Woman from the First Man
• the souls of human beings are created immediately ex nihil by God
• the entire human race descends from a single man and a single woman; our First Parents
• our First Parents were in a state of Original Justice and by disobedience brought us Original Sin
• Original Sin is passed down by being a descendant of the First Man (Adam)
• Original Sin came about at the instigation of Satan
• God promised to send a Redeemer Who is the Lord Jesus Christ

We are not required to believe that the body of the first human was prepared by a kind of evolution, but neither is the idea heretical, censured, or opposed to the One True Church and Her authoritative teachings. In the words of theologian Ott, "While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Ibid, pg. 95). 

How Would Catholic Teaching Harmonize With Evolution of the Body?

We must first distinguish and reject Darwinian evolution ("DE"). DE assumes as its dogma that change must be unguided and without purpose. It rules out a priori the existence of God. It also excludes in principle the idea of a sudden origin of a new kind of living thing through non-living material (slime of the Earth), or through multiple simultaneous mutation, or through large-scale reorganizations of cells, or any other event that could take place only through the presence of a Designer/Creator God. God can choose to work gradually or instantaneously, it is up to Him. Romans 11:34 reminds us: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" 

Much scientific data is skewed by those who are driven by Darwinian evolution and must preserve it at all costs. Frequently, we will hear statistics such as "humans and chimpanzees share DNA that is 99% similar." This is not accurate. The 99% figure arises from using a number of restrictions on the data:

1. it ignores repetitive portions of the DNA sequence

2. it compares only sequences which can be aligned naturally with one another

3. it considers only what is called "base-pair substitutions" and ignores "indels"--(insertions/deletions)

As my posts are not about technical science, I will not go into detail explaining those three points, as it would take another whole post. However, it shows how the evidence can be slanted by those who interpret it. According to Dr. Ingo Ebersberger, et. al, in their study "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry,"Molecular Biology and Evolution 24, 10 (2007), "For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as inter-genetic regions." This study analyzed similarities with orangutans, gorillas, and rhesus monkeys, and found cases in which human DNA aligns better with one of those primates. Depending upon how the data is interpreted, only 77% of our DNA is held in common with chimps, as opposed to 99%. Since 99% comports with the Darwinian view of evolution that we are "practically the same as apes," that's all the media will report, thus pushing the agenda of the enemies of God. 

For the Protestants and members of the Vatican II sect who think the idea of a real Adam and Eve is "ridiculous," a slight majority of Protestants, and many V2 sect members, at least pay lip service to the dogmas of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. They thereby acknowledge that Christ was like us in all things but sin, which implies He was a true human male with XY chromosomes even though He had no human father. Furthermore, He rose from the dead by His own power after being dead for three days. Clearly, these are Divine interventions in the natural world by God. So why couldn't God, impose upon a hominid lacking a rational soul, by giving him one?

It is possible for Adam and Eve to have lived about 40,000 years ago, in the time of the Upper Paleolithic cultural explosion when culture "took off" and when Homo sapiens began to fashion much more sophisticated stone tools and began to practice ritual burial of the dead. Moses, who wrote Genesis, is describing an actual historical event -- the creation of the first creatures who were fully human. The fall occurred through the sin of Adam and Eve; they were the first to have fully human brains and to be animated with a rational soul. 

There are those who object that this scenario is impossible because animals died prior to Adam and Eve, and it was sin that brought death into the world. Going back as far as 1847, a Protestant geologist, Edward Hitchcock, wisely saw nothing wrong with positing non-human death before Adam and Eve. He wrote:

Not only geology,but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the Fall of Man, but from the original constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food. [Even herbivores] must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant, [not to mention the destruction of]  millions of animalcula [microscopic organisms], which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe.

In short, death could not be excluded from the world, without an entire change in the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic [Genesis] account, took place when man fell. (See Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, 8th edition [1847], p. 299ff). 

Anthropological data is so general that it cannot oppose particular facts about an Adam and Eve. Speculation based upon present data can, at best, indicate the nature and activities of early humans, pointing to largely undefined populations and imprecise time periods. It cannot address with precision the conditions of existence of a single pair of humans at a particular, distant-past time. Neither anthropology, nor genetics, nor DE can exclude, a priori, the possibility of miraculous divine intervention whose reality falls entirely outside the fossil record. God could have produced a one time miracle to change the molecular structure of a prepared body into a human nature with a rational soul. 

Conclusion

Were Adam and Eve real? Absolutely. It can even be made to harmonize with evolution. We are all descended from our First Parents, and Christ was the Second Adam who rescued us from sin and death caused by the first Adam. I'm not claiming that Adam and Eve had to have occurred in the way I described in my post. I'm merely positing a scenario that  comports with Church teaching and the view of science which many wrongly claim excludes humanity having First Parents. It will hopefully cause those who call it "unscientific" or "mythology" to rethink their position.  I submit all I have written to the judgement of Holy Mother Church, if and when the papacy is restored, and will conform to Her judgments, as always. 

  

Hell Under Fire

Jorge Bergoglio and his Vatican II sect are universalists (i.e., people who believe everyone goes to Heaven). Under the new and heretical ecclesiology they espouse, everyone is in "partial communion" with the Church. As "St." John Paul the Great Apostate taught (echoing the decree of Vatican II Gaudium et Spes; "on the Church in the Modern World"): Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, "by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man" (Redemptor Hominis para. #13; Emphasis in original). If Christ is somehow "united" with each human being, how is it possible for anyone to go to Hell? Answer: they can't. This explains Begoglio's statement that atheists can go to Heaven.

It is also apparent from Vatican II sect worship that universalism is accepted. The former Requiem Mass is called the "Mass (sic) of Christian Burial." Black has been removed as a liturgical color and replaced with white because they no longer need to mourn for the dead or pray for the repose of anyone's soul. Any person unfortunate enough to have attended a Vatican II sect funeral knows it sounds like a canonization. Phrases like "we know that s/he is looking down upon us from Heaven" are not uncommon at the "homilies" of such services.The crosses are not crucifixes in many cases, but have the Resurrected Christ in place of the suffering Corpus.  I am reminded of the teaching of Pope Pius XII on the liturgy; so on target that it seems he had a glimpse of what was coming:

Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See. (See Mediator Dei, para. #62; Emphasis mine).

With the scandals among their clergy, only someone who has no fear of God and His just punishments could perpetrate such crimes against children. It has been said, "Only the virtuous believe in Hell." This heretical idea of "Heaven for all" has found its way into the mind of the general public. According to a 2016 poll:

Two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) say God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Twenty-four percent disagree. Twelve percent are not sure. Americans of all ages hold this belief, from those 18 to 34 years old (62 percent) to those 50 and older (67 percent).Only 30 percent of Americans who don’t have evangelical Protestant beliefs say Hell is a place of eternal judgment. (See https://factsandtrends.net/2016/09/27/what-do-americans-believe-about-god-new-study-explores-our-theology/).

A 2005 study reported, "Vast majorities of Americans believe in heaven and think they’re headed there.… Eighty-nine percent in this ABC News poll believe in heaven, which is consistent with data going back 30 years. Among believers, 85 percent think they’ll personally go there. Among all Americans, 75 percent think they’ll go to heaven. The rest include 5 percent who believe in heaven but don’t think they’ll get there; 9 percent who believe but aren’t sure they’ll get in; and 10 percent who don’t believe in heaven." (See https://abcnews.go.com/US/Beliefs/story?id=1422658).

This post will set forth the teaching of the One True Church on Hell, and common objections to the dogma will be answered.

The Church's Teaching On Hell

• The souls of those with the use of reason, and who die without sanctifying grace due to mortal sin, enter Hell.

According to theologian Ott, "Hell is a place or state of eternal punishment inhabited by those rejected by God." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 479). The Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus infallibly defined, "According to God's general ordinance, the souls of those who die in a personal grievous sin descend immediately into Hell, where they will be tormented by the pains of Hell." It must be noted that no one goes to Hell except by the wrong use of their free will. God gives to every human sufficient grace to be saved. God does not permit anyone to be lost for want of grace, including even pagans. (See theologian Pohle Dogmatic Theology, [1917], 7:180). Therefore, it is a truth that the damned have been rejected by God because they freely rejected Him and did not cooperate with His actual graces. To be saved one must (a) be within the One True Church, and (b) be in the state of sanctifying grace. If either requirement is not fulfilled at the moment of death, Hell will be the fate of that soul.

The reality of Hell is taught explicitly by both the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition. Our Lord spoke more about Hell than He did about Heaven. He warned all of this terrible reality. Here are but four examples taken from the Most Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew:

St. Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Hell.

St. Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into Hell.

St. Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Hell.

St. Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum! You won’t be lifted up to heaven, will you? You’ll go down to Hell! Because if the miracles that happened in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

• The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity.

The Fourth Lateran Council decreed, "Those [damned] will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil." The punishment of Hell consists of the pain of loss (poena damni) and the pain of sense (poena sensus). The poena damni is the essence of punishment; eternal deprivation of the Beatific Vision of God which is the intended Last End for all humans. "But he answering said: Amen I say to thee, I know thee not." (St. Matthew 25:12).  The poena sensus is a positive pain of sense inflicted on the damned. The fire of Hell was considered by individual Fathers, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa, to be symbolic and metaphorical for purely spiritual pains, such as the pain of the conscience which realizes the loss of Heaven is by the abuse of free will and the rejection of God's grace which could have saved that person.  This opinion has never been formally condemned or censured by the Church.

However, the majority of Fathers, and the majority of theologians after the Council of Trent, teach that the fire is real and material. The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, explains that the fire of Hell binds the souls to a material fire, which acts as an instrument of Divine penal justice. Through it the damned souls are made subject to matter and hindered in their free movement. (See Ott, supra, pgs. 480-481).

• The punishment of Hell is proportionate to the guilt of each individual. 

This is the common teaching of the theologians. Just as the glory of the just shall be proportionate to their merits (the Blessed Virgin Mary shall have greater glory than any other human being), so too shall the damned suffer in proportion to their evil deeds. Those who have no use of reason and die with only Original Sin, shall suffer poena damni, but shall not have any poena sensus. The doctrine of Limbo states that unbaptized babies (and the unbaptized severely retarded) may also enjoy some natural happiness. As to personal sins, those who die in the state of mortal sin shall suffer according to the number and malice of their offences. Hence, someone who dies in mortal sin from one act of fornication shall suffer less than a mass murderer. (See Ott, pg. 482).

Objections to Hell Answered

1. Why would a merciful God torture people forever? Can't God simply annihilate the soul at death, or make Hell a temporary punishment? Hell makes God an immoral monster.

Answer: First, Hell is eternal because sin, though finite by itself, is primarily committed against an infinite God; the punishment must therefore also be infinite. If you destroyed someone's property valued at $100, he has a strict right in justice to be compensated the full $100. God's 's friendship is infinite in value and the mortal sinner broke that friendship against a Perfect Being. Therefore, the punishment must be equally infinite. Hell is neither more nor less than absolute, perfect justice; it couldn’t be otherwise. "He is the Rock, His works are perfect, and all His ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He." (Deuteronomy 32:4). 

Second, Hell is eternal because no amount of punishment throughout finite time has any ultimate meaning compared to eternity. Imagine God punishing someone like Joseph Stalin for a billion years and then allowing him entrance into the eternal glory of Heaven for all eternity. That billion years of punishment would have no meaning at all compared to his eternity in Heaven and therefore would amount to no punishment at all. Annihilation is thus unjust as well. Someone can offend an infinite God with a life of debauchery and never have any conscious punishment for what they did. The punishment must fit the crime, and you would consciously offend an infinite God yet cease to exist without having been made aware of the enormity of your crime. 

Third, people themselves become their own punishment. A person will go into the next life as the person they  made themselves in this life. A human being's choice and fate are sealed at death. If someone goes to Judgement as an enemy of God, that individual rejects all that God is; love, goodness, etc. They have embraced hate, evil, and all that is wrong. That's who they will be for all eternity.

Finally, God's love and mercy are two sides of the same coin. God is both infinitely merciful and infinitely just. If God's mercy kept people out of eternal perdition because no one deserves to suffer forever, wouldn't God's infinite justice keep everyone out of the infinite happiness and glory of Heaven, because no one is worthy of that as well? 

2. Since God knows the future, He knew who would go to Hell before He created them. Wouldn't it be more merciful just to create people who will die and go to Heaven, and not create people who will choose to sin and go to Hell? 

Answer: This is a question which has not been definitively answered by the Church. There are certain things in our holy religion called mysteries. The dogma of the Trinity is one such mystery. We know it is true, even though we cannot fully comprehend how there are three Divine Persons that compose the One True God. Sacred Scripture tells us:

"For My thoughts are not thy thoughts, neither are thy ways My ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than thy ways and My thoughts than thy thoughts. (Isaiah 55: 8-9).

"How unsearchable His judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out. Who hath known the mind of the Lord?" (Romans 11:13-14).

Mysteries are above and beyond, but not opposed to, reason. Predestination (in the Catholic sense, not the heretical Calvinist teaching) is a mystery. That being said, remember that God is not absolutely omnipotent, meaning that He cannot act contrary to His own Divine Nature. It is impossible for God to lie, for example, as He is Truth itself.  When God wanted to make a world of rational creatures who would be able to freely accept or reject Him, it is possible that the best way to do so was by permitting those who would willingly choose evil to exist. In so doing, their actions may result in the highest number of saved souls because even evil actions can have good repercussions that only an omniscient Mind could fully comprehend. Also keep in mind that the persons who will be damned are in Hell because of their own misuse of free will, and not due to any action on the part of God.

3. How can anyone be happy in Heaven if they know that their (husband, wife, mother, father, child, sibling, best friend, etc.) is suffering forever in Hell? 

There are three things to be said in response:

• If you had a child (or parent) who committed murder and was sentenced to death for his/her crime, you wouldn't be happy about their choice to murder, but you would also realize that they were being justly punished. You feel bad because in our current fallen state on Earth, we do not see the things from the perspective of ultimate justice. That perspective (or "God's-eye view" if you will) makes everything different. We will understand things and feel differently about them when we see them from God's point of view.

• This objection has at the root, the idea that God is somehow unjust unless everyone is happy. "Unless everyone is happy (or most everyone), then I can't be happy." The person who so objects thinks they are more merciful than God, and could "do things better than Him." 

• Imagine if you were poor and hungry and I offered you a meal and you refused it, would that mean that I shouldn’t eat and be happy? Just because you refused food and died of starvation doesn’t mean that I can’t enjoy a meal. So too, is the relation between the damned and the saved. The objection also gives Satan, his demons, and the damned the ability to take away the happiness of the saints in Heaven. This is impossible because it would make Satan, a mere creature, more powerful than God and able to thwart His Divine Plan for the universe. 

Do More People Go to Hell or to Heaven?

This is another most interesting question on which the Church has never pronounced a binding judgement. In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas states, "Some say that as many men shall be saved as angels fell; some, so many as there were angels left; others, in fine, as many as the number of angels who fell, added to that all the angels created by God. It is, however, better to say that 'God alone knows the number for whom is reserved eternal happiness,' as the prayer for the living and the dead expresses it." (See Ia, qu. 23, art. 7). 

Some theologians think the number of the elect to be so small, it would drive a saint to despair. Aquinas held that relatively few are saved. This is the "rigourist" theory, and it has many weighty arguments in its favor. Redemptorist theologian Godts, put out a tome entitled On The Fewness of the Saved. It has been getting renewed attention among Traditionalists as it has been recently republished by Refuge of Sinners Publishing. It is a spirited defense of the rigourist view. Our Lord Himself said, "Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (St. Matthew 7:13-14). 

However, theologian Castelein produced many strong arguments against the rigourist view. Traditionalist Catholics are free to take either side of the controversy. The anti-rigorous view has, at the core of its contention, that the number of the elect must be equal to or greater than the number of the damned because it is repugnant to think that the future and final kingdom of Satan (Hell) is more populous than the Kingdom of Christ, whose members were ransomed at the cost of the shedding of His Precious Blood upon the gibbet of the Cross. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, [1917],  7:194-195). 

Conclusion

Hell is a sobering thought. It is real and (God forbid!) we can go there. As St. Paul tells us, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as thou hast always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence), with fear and trembling work out thy salvation." (See Philippians 2:12; Emphasis mine). While we know Hell is real and there are damned souls within, we may not say with certainty (without special revelation) that any particular person is damned. No one knows what transpires in those last moments between a soul and God; and God can save anyone who calls upon Him with faith and contrition. We can only say that Judas is in Hell based on the words of Our Lord, "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." (St. Mark 14:6). Moreover, the Catechism of the Council of Trent  says that, "It is such as these that our Savior describes as hirelings, who, in the words of Ezechiel, feed themselves and not the sheep, and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesiastical state, so much so that hardly anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful, but also end in this, that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction." (Emphasis mine). 

As to the saved, while we may certainly pray and hope that our deceased loved ones are in Heaven, we cannot be certain that anyone is there besides the Blessed Mother and the canonized saints (since canonizations are infallible). The Vatican II sect wants you to believe that all religions are more or less good (except Traditionalists, of course!), and that everyone is basically good and on the road to salvation. So eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die and go to Heaven! Yes, Hell is under fire on all sides, from the Vatican II sect to our secular society that scoffs at the idea of eternal punishment. Anyone foolish enough to buy into this heresy, might find out about the reality of Hell when they (God forbid) arrive there. May Christ have mercy on us all. 

More Feeneyite Follies

 The definition of insanity, so they say, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I must have had a momentary lapse of reason after my post two weeks ago on Feeneyites (those who deny Church teaching on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood; so named after the excommunicated Jesuit priest, Fr. Leonard Feeney). One of the fanatical Twitter supporters of Fred and Bobby Dimond's "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM), replied to my weekly tweet I send out each Monday announcing my post. He wanted me to "finally answer his questions." I had stopped responding because communicating with a Feeneyite, in almost all cases, is as much an act of futility as trying to tell Jorge Bergoglio "what people believe actually matters." I tried to reason with him to no avail, and when I challenged him to debate me in a neutral forum, he would refuse.

I dislike the use of the word cult because it is so subject to abuse. It should not be used to identify false religions, unless they use any manner of physical, monetary, or psychological coercion to get people to join and/or prevent them from leaving. For this reason, I refer to the man-made religion of Vatican II as a sect. Scientology is an example of a cult. Whether or not MHFM is a cult I will leave up to the judgement of my readers. I will, however, note some disturbing characteristics I've noticed among MHFM followers:

They exhibit programmed conversation and mannerisms, mimicking the personal behavior of the Dimonds.

Examples:

• When I asked the aforementioned Twitter follower to read my post, he said he would not click on the link. They will not read anything that challenges their belief system. 

• People who disagree with them are labeled "liars," and "heretics." 

• If you point out an error they will simply respond that "it's not true" without any evidence to back up their claim (and after calling you a "liar"). 

 A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without the Dimonds' involvement.

Examples:

• They will tweet out screenshots of the MHFM website as if it were the Gospel. "It's Church teaching" they will tell you, and not what the Dimond brothers say. It's really no different from small Protestant sects which put up a website and claim "it's what the Bible says." Yes, but interpreted by whom? It's private judgement with Scripture, and the Dimonds do the same with Church teachings using the "plain meaning rule" I explained in my last post on the Feeneyites (July 29--See https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/07/feeneyite-follies.html) 

• One MHFM follower on Twitter claimed that St Alphonsus Liguori "made a mistake" about Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). It was brought to his attention that Pope Gregory XVI declared the works of St. Alphonsus (one of the greatest Doctors of the Church) "free from the slightest error." To this, the MHFM supporter replied that the sublime saint did not have "the great grace of being able to read the book" of the Dimond brothers (!) To even suggest that a Doctor of the Church, one of the greatest theologians of all time along with Aquinas, needed to read a book written by two men born after Vatican II with no ecclesiastical training and no secular education above high school, would be funny if not so pathetic. The Dimond brothers "found his error" when two Vicars of Christ,  Pope Gregory XVI who canonized him and Pope Pius IX who declared him a Doctor of the Church, found none 

• All their "arguments" (if you really want to call them by that appellation) are mere repetitions of what Fred and Bobby Dimond have decreed 

• They reject Church teaching on periodic continence within marriage because that's what Fred and Bobby "teach" them

• They have exalted praying 15 decades of the Rosary daily (a very laudable thing to do in itself) to the status of some sort of "requirement of salvation"

Bottom line: Extra Dimond Nulla Salus--Outside Fred and Bobby Dimond there is no salvation.

In this week's post, I'd like to address two points of contention that came up with the Feeneyite on Twitter. I would like to think this post will be read by MHFM supporters, but they won't read any "heretical" writings. They will not allow you to confuse them with the facts. That's why they will never debate on a neutral forum. If they did, it would become painfully apparent to the objective observer that their so-called arguments fall flat. Only in tweeting out snippets of information intended to sound erudite can they ever hope to make a "case." These tweets and threads are hard to follow and make checking the citations (when they have any) exceedingly difficult. When you point out a gaffe, they will never acknowledge they were wrong, they simply tweet out something else. This is not a formal debate, just an exchange of certain points of information at best. Don't engage them on Twitter or in any forum where arguments and information cannot be put forth in a clear and concise manner--it's a waste of your time. What follows are but two more Feeneyite follies exposed.

Unanimous Confusion Regarding Nomenclature

One of the points of contention was the inability of the Feeneyites to understand that, in theology, words don't have only a univocal meaning. Just as words in other disciplines have different meanings, so too in Catholic theology. For example, when we speak of "private" revelations, it does not mean that only one or two people saw the apparition. It means that it is not part of the Deposit of Revelation that ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in the year 100 A.D. Such apparitions, visions, etc.do not need to be believed. Therefore, even the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, witnessed by thousands of people, is still private revelation. 

One of the proofs that BOD and BOB were defined at Trent is that we have the unanimous consent of the theologians who teach both the absolute necessity of the sacrament of Baptism with reference to Trent, and BOD/BOB; a sure sign that Trent taught BOD/BOB when it spoke of the necessity of Baptism "or the desire thereof."  My Feeneyite opponent had what he believed to be a defeater to my argument which would "prove" there was no unanimous consent of theologians. He cited to a text written by Fr. William Jurgens, in which he does seem to question the teaching on BOD and BOB. 

The upshot of his contention is that to be unanimous, every single approved theologian must teach the same thing, and if only one theologian disagrees...well, goodbye to unanimity. My opponent had two major problems. First, Jurgens is not an approved theologian or canonist. His doctorate was not in Sacred Theology or Canon Law, but in Ecclesiastical History. Therefore his contention that Jurgens was against BOD or BOB (even if true), is the mere opinion of an historian and not the teaching of an approved theologian or canonist. Second, universal does not mean numerical unanimity, but moral unanimity. He thinks of "universal" in terms of the Catholic Church Herself, where "catholic" means "universal." St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 100 A.D.) used the word Catholic to mean "universal" to describe the Church (See Letter to the Smyrnaens). The Church is indeed Catholic in that Christ is universally present in the Church and that He has commissioned the Church to evangelize the world– "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations..." (St. Matthew 28:19).

Unanimous does not mean the same when we talk about unanimity among the approved theologians and Fathers of the Church. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):

When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required. 

The Feeneyites talk about the necessity of the universal and constant consent of the Fathers as spoken of at the Vatican Council (1869-1870), yet they once more fail to comprehend its meaning. Here is an example from the Vatican Council: 

The universal and constant tradition of the Church, as seen both in facts and in the teaching of the Fathers, as well as in the manner of acting and speaking adopted by many Councils, some of which were Ecumenical, teaches us that the judgments of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals are irreformable. (See http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-postulatum.htm). 

Protestants jumped all over this by trying to show at least one Father of the Church in disagreement with papal infallibility (therefore "not universal"), or it was not so from antiquity (therefore not constant chronologically). Both the Protestants and Feeneyites get their terms wrong.  According to the eminent theologian of the Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, Cardinal Franzelin, universality means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only when the present universality (moral unanimity) cannot be confirmed is it necessary to appeal to antiquity, and that appeal is not to show it was always held, but rather if it was ever held by the Church as certain.  (See On Divine Tradition, reprint of 1875, [2016], pgs. 417-423). 

An objection presented by my opponent was that since the Fathers of the Church believed that Baptized babies went to Hell (and suffered the least amount of pain), then the doctrine of Limbo must be wrong. Their contention that all Fathers believed in Hell for unbaptized infants is patently false. Theologian Ott notes that the Fathers of the East (he cites St Gregory Nazianzus) did not share the idea of St Augustine that unbaptized infants go to the fires of Hell. They taught that they received the pain of separation from God (poena damni), but not the inflicted pain of the senses by fire (poena sensus). This was the early conception of what became known as Limbo. (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 114). Later on, especially under St. Thomas Aquinas, it was thought that perhaps unbaptized infants enjoyed some small amount of natural happiness. (See theologian Dyer, Limbo: Unsettled Question [1963]). Hence, the objection fails, 

The "Grace of Baptism"

 The second point of contention was the alleged "mistake" St. Alphonsus Liguori made (as well as the other theologians), that BOD does not remit the full temporal punishments due to sin as does the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, you are not receiving "the grace of Baptism" and BOD does not exist.

There is confusion on the meaning of the term "grace of Baptism." First, the Feeneyite objection will be set forth in a syllogistic form:

1. An adult who receives water baptism validly and who dies before committing a sin goes immediately to Heaven because the "grace of baptism" washes away all sin and all punishment due to sin.

2. An adult who receives baptism of desire does not have all punishment due to sin washed away.

3. Hence, an adult who receives baptism of desire is receiving something other than the "grace of baptism."

4. Therefore, an adult who receives baptism of desire, is not actually receiving the "grace of baptism," and will not go to Heaven were he to die before receiving water baptism.

It seems valid, but the problem lies in the term "grace of baptism" not being properly understood. The term applies to a bundle of gifts that the Sacrament alone gives to the recipient. Those gifts are:

• The infusion of sanctifying grace (which washes away all sin, both Original and actual [mortal and venial])

• The infusion of the three theological virtues (these actually never exist in a soul without sanctifying grace, but are distinct from sanctifying grace)

• The removal of all temporal punishment for sin

• The communication of the baptismal character on the soul which gives the soul a right to participate in the Church's sacramental life

• incorporation into the Church (See Ott, supra, pgs. 350-360)

BOD does not communicate "the bundle" that is always communicated via the "grace of baptism."

BOD does communicate the first two items in the bundle, however, and as a consequence puts the recipient within the One True Church. So while it does not communicate "the grace of baptism," it communicates enough of the gifts included in the grace of baptism to justify.  This is because justification consists simply in the existence of God's life in the soul and the habituation of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.  While it is true that a man who receives baptism of desire receives something other than the "grace of baptism" technically considered, the person who receives BOD does receive the justifying effects of baptism.

In revisiting the Feeneyite objection above, #4 does not logically follow from numbers 1-3. They actually beg the question when they assert "BOD does not communicate the grace of baptism," because they are really saying, "BOD is not the same as being justified by water baptism. Water baptism is the only way to be justified. Therefore, BOD does not justify."  The whole point of dispute is whether water baptism (the sacrament) is the only way to be justified, and they gratuitously assume it to be true in making their objection to BOD.

Finally, there is the condemned proposition #31 of Michael du Bay (Condemned in the decree Ex omnibus afflicionibus of Pope St. Pius V on October 1, 1567) which states:

CONDEMNED: Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Timothy 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. 

So a catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity which necessitates the remission of sin. It says nothing about the remission of temporal punishments. BOB, on the other hand, is considered by theologians as removing all temporal punishments. This is most likely because death in the service of Christ is a kind of penance whereby those debts are remitted. Such a penitent type of willful surrender of one's life to Christ is different than a catechumen who has a heart attack or a car accident causing death prior to Baptism.

Conclusion

This ends my expose of the Feeneyite follies for awhile. There are just too many and it would require numerous posts, but I wanted to show the eerie mindset of the MHFM followers, and their egregious errors.

Note to my readers:
Rarely do I endorse any books on my blog. I make the exception this week for the incredible work of Dylan Fellows and Christopher Conlon entitled Contra Crawford: A Defense of Baptism of Desire and Periodic Continence. It is the greatest tome put out against the Feeneyites since Steven Speray's book Baptism of Desire or Blood (A Defense Defense in Brief Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam) published ten years ago. Crawford was a seminarian of the CMRI who espoused the errors of the Feeneyites as a deacon. Bishop Pivarunas refused to ordain him to the priesthood, and I've been told he received dubious orders elsewhere.

 Contra Crawford was written to refute his errors. The book is erudite yet eminently readable. These two gentlemen wrote a masterpiece that I can't recommend highly enough. I've had the pleasure of communicating with Dylan Fellows, and his keen insights have greatly helped me. He is a true Traditionalist gentlemen. You may obtain a copy by following the links below. May it be read far and wide in defense of Holy Mother Church!

• Contra Crawford by Fellows & Conlon (PDF Download)
• Contra Crawford by Fellows & Conlon (Paperback)

Singing For Satan---Part 25

This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

Creed and Scott Stapp

 In the late 1990s, a new movement in rock and roll took place, known as the post-grunge movement.  Unlike the grunge bands, such as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and the Stone Temple Pilots, the post-grunge music had a more polished and less abrasive sound. The lyrics were lest angst ridden (it would be hard to be more angst ridden than grunge!), and the power-ballad was revived to great commercial success. The post-grunge sound remained highly popular into the 2000s. At the forefront of the post-grunge craze was the band that all the others imitated--Creed. With bold, spiritual themed songs, Creed became a huge success thanks to lead singer Scott Stapp. Other bands of the genre such as 3 Doors Down, Cold, and Lifehouse, all had singers that tried to sound like Stapp, a man who became known as "The Voice" of the late 1990s. 

Creed was formed in Florida in 1993 by Scott Stapp (b. Anthony Flippen in 1973) on lead vocals/lyrics and his friend from high school, Mark Tremonti (b. 1974) who wrote music and played lead guitar. Stapp and Tremonti had been friends in high school and both wound up attending Florida State University where they started playing music together and decided to form a band. The duo put up posters around campus inviting musicians to try out. They chose three men whom they felt were both serious and talented. Brain Marshall (b. 1973) played bass, Thomas Scott "Flip" Phillips (b. 1973) played drums, and Brian Basher (b. 1973) played rhythm guitar. However, Basher left the band in 1995 before their first album was made, and they decided not to replace him, continuing Creed as a quartet.  

The band was looking for a name, and Tremonti thought that it would be funny to call themselves Naked Toddler, after he read a newspaper account of police having found such a child abandoned in the street. The others reluctantly agreed, but soon regretted the using the name when audiences thought they were promoting pedophilia and would boo them. Stapp insisted the name be changed immediately. He asked the other members if they ever played in other bands, and what names they had. Tremonti said he played for a short time with a group calling themselves Moxon Creed. Stapp immediately suggested just using "Creed" for the band as it sounded impressive to him. The group voted unanimously to adopt the name.   

After getting well known around the college area, the four of them worked at menial jobs for minimum wage, while studying and making music. The songwriting team of Stapp and Tremonti wrote tunes that were drawing in audiences, so the four of them (Basher had left) decided to scrape together $6,000 to produce a small amount of CDs for their first album entitled My Own Prison. They were successful, and were able to produce 6,000 low quality sounding CDs (what can you expect for $1 each?). Despite the sound quality they sold out all 6,000 copies quickly. A small local radio station started playing the title track, and the group caught the attention of Diana Meltzer and her husband; entrepreneurs who were starting a record label called  Wind-Up Records. She and her husband decided to hear Creed play in person, and they were amazed by Stapp's voice and sheer energy as he sang. They offered to sign them right away as their label's first act, and Creed signed immediately.

Wind-Up remixed the album, and released it nationwide. The first four singles hit number one in 1997. By 1998, everyone had heard of Creed, and most bands wanted to emulate them. They released their second album in 1999, entitled Human Clay---it was certified diamond (10 million copies sold). Their third album Weathered (2001) was tremendously successful as well, even though Creed was now a trio, with the departure of Marshall. The band broke up when Stapp and Tremonti had high tensions that ended their friendship. Stapp had a moderately successful solo career, while the other three members formed a group called Alter Bridge, which was not very successful (in large part due to the absence of Stapp's vocals). They reunited as Creed in 2009, putting out the album Full Circle, after which they broke up again. Creed has sold over 53 million albums worldwide, and was the ninth best-selling band of the 2000s.

Personal Research

Creed was sometimes referred to as a "Christian rock group" and Stapp was quick to denounce the idea. Twenty years ago, Stapp was quoted in an interview as saying, "I'm not preaching; I'm not trying to get people to believe in Christianity. And a lot of the songs are me trying to figure out if I believe in it at all, me trying to deal with the condemnation and guilt that Christianity can lay on a young person’s mind." Most of the songs seemed irreverent and questioning of God's existence and/or motives. At first, I decided not to include Creed in this series, because when I originally did my research, Creed hadn't taken off yet. My superficial findings I did when they hit the big time left me confused because Stapp was on drugs and a raging alcoholic, yet he never sang or bragged about it like the other rock artists. He also would make comments, such as:

 "...I'm haunted by God. It’s something that I can’t escape. I’ve been indoctrinated in that religion since I was an infant – it’s second nature to me. I believe in God because it’s what I’ve been told my entire life. So there’s a conflict in me; and probably for three songs each record, I’ll deal with that. It’s just a cleansing thing,..." Haunted by God? I couldn't help but think of the poem The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson. In the poem, the speaker is running from God, as do many people caught up in the world. But God pursues him. Although aware of God's love for him, the speaker continues to run, believing that submitting to God means giving up worldly pleasures. It seemed to fit Stapp's life as I saw it. While Tremonti seemed detestable, Stapp evoked a feeling of pity from me. As I was not really researching to the extent I used to, I decided to just stop my research of the group. The only artist I ever researched at length and found harmless was Christopher Cross (b. Christopher Geppert in 1951). I was not even intending to make Creed a post in this series until earlier this year.

In my original post in this series, I mentioned that in 1989, I met someone with whom I am still good friends today. He was a DJ on a small station in NY, playing CCM ("Contemporary Christian Music") which included "Christian Heavy Metal"! I learned quite a bit from him. He told me that the problem with secular rock and pop music are the lifestyles of the artists and the lyrics. He did not condemn all secular music. He does not claim that everything is evil unless specifically religious. He did bring out the need to beware and use discernment. I received a call from him--I'll call him "Rob" (not his real name)--- earlier this year. "How are you, my friend?" he asked. "I'm doing well! What's going on?" I replied. "How would you like to meet Scott Stapp in person?" I was stunned. I knew Rob refused to play Creed because he had serious reservations about the lyrics and lifestyles--although he too felt unsure about the group for the same reasons I did.

"I know you have connections, but why would you want to see Scott Stapp?" Rob was excited, "Didn't you hear? Scott accepted Christianity and his second solo album has songs in honor of Jesus! He's working on a new album right now, due out in July. You can read about his conversion in his 2012 autobiography called Sinner's Creed." I was at a loss for words. Rob continued, "Look I have an extra copy of his book, and I'll send you his last CD, Proof of Life. We used to talk about him when Creed was big." I thought for a moment and told Rob, "I'd like to meet him. Thank you for sending on the book and CD. Will I have time to read and listen before the meeting?" His answer was what I was hoping for: "Of course. It is a rehearsal of the new album, you'll hear it before anybody else. It's only February, and the meeting will be in June." I thanked Rob again, and couldn't wait to see what this conversion was all about.

 When the book and CD arrived, I devoured them. I finished the book in two evenings after work, and listened to the CD in my car. The story of Scott Stapp was fascinating to me. Born Anthony Scott Flippen on August 8, 1973, the future voice of Creed was born the son of a printer and former Marine, Richard Flippen and his wife Lynda. He has two younger sisters, Amanda and Aimee. When Anthony was still a little boy, his father abandoned his family. Neither his father or mother ever gave an explanation for this event. His mother got a divorce and took the kids to a Protestant church every Sunday. His mother was devout. While Anthony was still a boy, his mother got remarried to Steven Stapp, a dentist and Protestant minister.

At first, Anthony really liked Steve. After marrying his mother, he adopted all three children and gave them his surname. Anthony liked his middle name better than Anthony, so his new legal name became Scott Stapp. Steven Stapp soon revealed himself for who he really was; a bully. He would give "Christian discipline" in the form of beating his adopted children mercilessly for the slightest infraction of any one of his rules. As "head of the household" he didn't hesitate to slap around his wife if she "got out of line." Whenever Scott did something his adopted father did not like, he would make him go to his room and write an essay on some part of the Bible, such as the Book of Job. The next Sunday, his father plagiarized Scott's analysis of the Book of Job for his sermon and never gave his son credit. Scott said nothing for fear of being beaten, and his adopted father kept on plagiarizing.

It was from this caricature of "God" that Scott Stapp rebelled. He wound up running away from home and enrolling in Florida State University (even though he had been accepted at Ivy League schools), where he barely made enough money by waiting tables and had some help from his biological father whom Scott hunted down in order to reconnect. After his career with Creed took off, the Meltzer's were pushing Scott to perform night after night without any respite. They had an unscrupulous doctor give Scott pain medications to which he became addicted. He would also "self-medicate" with alcohol and have blackouts. He fell into deep depression.

He met a young woman Hillaree Burns whom he married in 1997, but he admits he really didn't really love her. They had a son, Jagger, for whom he wrote the mega-hit song With Arms Wide Open. He divorced Burns when she proved to be more of an addict than he was, and Stapp obtained sole custody of their son. By 2003, Scott Stapp was worth almost $30 million dollars. Thanks to the mismanagement of the Meltzer's and his drug and booze addiction, he wound up losing almost all his money. Not only that, but his adopted father's dental practice was going south and he had racked up massive debt. Scott's mother asked him to help, and despite years of abuse, he bailed Steven Stapp out to the tune of $1.5 million dollars. His family only called on him when they needed money, and now the money was gone. He put two guns to his head and was going to kill himself so he could be like Kurt Cobain--a "martyr" that could produce a lot of money for his son.

Tremonti and the other band members had turned on him, so why not "finish it"? Tremonti accused Stapp of being a narcissist who wanted all the attention, yet when Rolling Stone magazine called wanting to put Scott Stapp on the cover, he refused unless Creed was on the cover as a band. No one turns down Rolling Stone, but Scott did just that, and the Meltzers were furious! The magazine unexpectedly called back a couple of days later, and agreed to put all of Creed on the cover. Instead of being happy, when the band found out, they became angry that Stapp was even asked to be on the cover alone. Jealousy was tearing them apart. As he thought of all this and was about to pull the trigger, out of the corner of his eye he saw a picture of his son Jagger, and shot up his house as he cried. His love for his son had saved his life.

In 2004, after Creed broke up, Stapp embarked on a solo career. His first album went platinum in 2005, called The Great Divide. In 2005, his life took a good turn when he met 2004 Miss New York beauty queen Jaclyn Nesheiwat. They were married in 2006 and have three children. Later that year, while drunk, he fell off a roof and should have died. He was found by a Christian rap artist T.I. who saved his life by finding Scott and staying with him until the ambulance he called arrived. That's when Stapp began taking God seriously again. In 2012, his autobiography came out, and his 2013 album Proof of Life definitely had a Christian spin on it.

He had written the song Jesus was a Rockstar:

He walked on water man. He made that water wine.
And then he drank with people you and me would just cast aside
He did his people good. Just like he said he would.
And in the blink of an eye, he gave a blind man sight
His love was thunder in the sky
His roar was lions in the night
When he spoke he always drew a crowd
His message was his lifestyle
He gave us everything and more
He was the party we've been looking for
Maybe, just maybe.... Jesus was rockstar!
Can I get a witness?
He brought the dead to life
He rose when called to rise
There was a passion in his eyes and it spread like wildfire
His love was thunder in the sky
His roar was lions in the night
When he spoke he always drew a crowd
His message was his lifestyle
He gave us everything and more
He was the party we've been looking for
Maybe, just maybe.... Jesus was rockstar!
Can I get a witness?
Father I have sinned a million sins
Save me from this world you put me in
So come on. Come on. Bring Jesus back again.

His love was thunder in the sky
His roar was lions in the night
When he spoke he always drew a crowd
His message was his lifestyle
He brought the fire and the light
He wrote the songs you can't deny
He rocked so hard, I can hear him now
He brought the house down!
He gave us everything and more
He was the party we've been looking for
Maybe, just maybe
I said maybe, just maybe
Maybe, maybe, maybe
Jesus was a rockstar
Can I get a witness?
Jesus was a rockstar

Can I get a witness?

I didn't know what to make of all of this material. Stapp fell off the wagon after his book, and his wife filed for divorce. He pleaded for her not to leave and they reconciled. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder after a psychotic break in 2014 and turned more to prayer. He's been clean and sober ever since. With all this info, I went to meet the man himself.

The Meeting

Note to my readers: The words attributed to myself and Scott Stapp are as best I remember them. I did not record the meeting (his security team did not allow such--or cameras). What follows is as close to the actual conversation according to my memory and the notes I made right afterwards to keep the memory fresh. The ideas and things we discussed are accurate, but I do not mean to imply that every actual word is captured in quotations.---Introibo

I arrived with my friend at the place where the meeting would occur. It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon. Rob and I entered with a couple of other people he knew. Scott Stapp and his band members were practicing the songs for his new album The Space Between the Shadows. They were playing as if they were in front of a huge audience of thousands, not alone in an auditorium. I have never witnessed anyone sing with the energy and passion of Scott Stapp. That's in large part because all the songs are personal to him. He was never allowed to express his feelings growing up, so music was his way to put his emotions out for the world to hear on topics about which he really cared.

The songs were quite moving and very reverent. No bad language was used, and the band was very serious as they played. When they finished the set, Scott saw Rob and the rest of us. "Hello, and welcome!" he shouted. Scott Stapp came and greeted each of us. He stands about 5'9" and has a slim, muscular build. He was wearing a t-shirt, jeans, socks and sneakers--all solid black. Mr. Stapp was humble, genuine, and affable; very refreshing for someone who was so famous. We shook hands and I inquired if I might ask him a few questions. "Of course," he said with a smile. 

"How would you describe your music now? Are you a Christian Rock artist or a Christian who plays rock and roll?" He thought for a moment. "I'm a Christian who plays rock and roll. I wasn't always a good Christian, I did some very bad things, but I was always Christian in my heart. Some people feel that my earlier songs were disrespectful towards God, but that's what I was going through at the time--I was questioning my faith. If your faith is so strong you never questioned it, I admire that, but for myself and many others, we are sometimes overcome by doubts. Christian rock is always out in the open about Christ, and I am sometimes too. Other times my message is subtle. Therefore, I avoid the term 'Christian rock' for me. I turned my back on God because of my upbringing (he pointed to the copy of his autobiography I was holding). But I was wrong. My adopted father's God is not the True God. I've come back to a proud faith."

An example of questioning his faith from his time with Creed can be seen in the lyrics to Don't Stop Dancing:

At times life is wicked and I just can't

See the light

A silver lining sometimes isn't enough

To make some wrongs seem right

Whatever life brings

I've been through everything

And now I'm on my knees again

But I know I must go on

Although I hurt I must be strong

Because inside I know that many

Feel this way

Children don't stop dancing

Believe you can fly

Away, away

At times life's unfair and you know

It's plain to see

Hey God I know I'm just a dot in this world

Have you forgot about me?

Whatever life brings

I've been through everything

And now I'm on my knees again

But I know I must go on

Although I hurt I must be strong

Because inside I know that many

Feel this way

Children don't stop dancing

Believe you can fly

Away, away

Am I hiding in the shadows?

Forget the pain and forget the sorrows

Am I hiding in the shadows?

Forget the pain and forget the sorrows

But I know I must go on

Although I hurt I must be strong

Because inside I know that many feel this way

Children don't stop dancing

Believe you can fly

Away, away (Emphasis mine)

He wonders if God "forgot" about him during his trials, but he's on his knees again, praying anyway.

Next, I asked him, "What is your song Higher about? I've done some research, and there are some sources that claim it's about Hinduism and you wrote it while engaged in pagan/occult meditation. Some claim it's a reference to drugs." Scott's head dropped. He looked sincerely pained by the question. He looked up and said, "The song is about Heaven, however you conceive of it. I'm Christian, so of course I see it from a Christian worldview. The idea that it involves Hinduism or the occult is just another vicious rumor about me. If I had a dime for every vicious rumor, I'd be worth multi-millions.I detest drugs and alcohol abuse. It nearly destroyed me and I don't approve of songs that glamorize it. The song speaks of streets of gold; that's Biblical imagery." 

He then took me on a brief survey of his new album. The title The Space Between the Shadows, is a collection of songs which tells us that as Christians we see life is mostly pain/evil, so we must find the space or light between those dark areas (evil) to learn and grow from our hurts and help others in pain. In so doing, we help ourselves, grow closer to God, and make sense of life. "Let me show you something," he said, and lead me to a large screen TV. "Watch this short video." A twelve minute video played showing Scott and his wife helping children in Central America. He donates a portion of his income to helping these impoverished kids. As I watched, one of the songs from his album played in the background of the video called Wake Up Call. It expresses the exasperation he feels about God sometimes seeming far away. It means the oppressed of this world (like these poor children) can be helped, and life changed for the better if we want it to; let the suffering of others be our wake up call to action.

One day the bridge is going to break

One day the world will stand still

The sky will fall the earth will shake

There's just so much a heart can take

This is a wake up call

How many times before you lose it all

You're like a cannon ball

Breaking walls

This is a wake up call

Before there's no one left to catch your fall

But you can change it all

If you want to...

Sometimes life is so insane

Sometimes we don't know what to feel

Does God help us when we pray

Or do we face it all alone, all alone

This is a wake up call

How many times before you lose it all

You're like a cannon ball

Breaking walls

This is a wake up call

Before there's no one left to catch your fall

But you can change it all

If you want to...

If you want to...

If you want to...

If you want to...

This is a wake up call

How many times before you lose it all

This is your wake up call

Before there's no one left to catch your fall

But you can change it all

If you want to...

If you want to...

If you want to...

If you want to...

This is your wake up call

And you can change it all

If you want to...

If you want to...

Then he spoke about a touching ballad dedicated to two of his friends (rock singers Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington) who lived the same heathen lifestyle he did and died. "I wonder why they're gone and I'm still here. I hope they're in a better place. I'm glad to be alive, and I want to make my time count doing good here on Earth." The ballad is called Gone Too Soon:

So heavy I hit the floor

My heart is shaken and torn

Can't catch my breath don't know what to feel

My tears are starting to burn

I scream it wasn't your turn

I can't believe it, this can't be real

Gone too soon my friend

I know your dancing with angels on the wind

It's not the end

Until I reach forever

And were together

You will always be

Gone too soon

A heart with love left to give

A soul with life left to live

So full of color not one defined you

I wish I had one more day

So much that I'd want to say

So much that I didn't take the time too

Gone too soon my friend

I know your dancing with angels on the wind

It's not the end

Until I reach forever

And were together

You will always be

Gone too soon

Oh... Gone too soon

Oh... Yeah

Still can't believe that its true

Still can't believe that's its you

Gone too soon my friend

I know your dancing with angels on the wind

It's not the end

Until I reach forever

And were together

You will always be

Gone too soon

Gone too soon

Gone too soon

Finally, I had to ask him one last question about my favorite song on the album; it is the only other ballad called Mary's Crying. I heard the lyrics but I wondered if it could possibly be true, since this man is a Protestant. "The song Mary's Crying---is it about the Blessed Mother crying over the evil in the world?" He smiled. "Yes." My jaw nearly hit the ground. He had met Traditionalist Mel Gibson (in his better days) when he made the mega-hit, awesome movie The Passion of the Christ. Gibson had asked him to write a song for the album to the film, which Scott did, called Relearn Love:

On a dark and lonely highway

I need the Son to raise my head

I come before you... I am naked

The man I am now must be shed

I've weathered storms and I am broken

My beaten heart is in your hands

What I really need is shelter and a chance

To relearn love

Teach me all over, all over

To relearn love

Show me again

So I can relearn love

The comfort of your arms around me

Your tender hands caress my head

I lay beside you, I'm not worthy

This jaded man's not who I am

I've touched the flame and I've been burned

All I need is a second chance

Give me eyes of a child

And teach this man

To relearn love

Teach me all over, all over

To relearn love

Show me again

So I can relearn love

To relearn love

Teach me all over, all over

To relearn…

I shook Mr. Stapp's hand and thanked him for his honesty and time. I asked if he would autograph my book and he did. As we were leaving, Rob asked me what I thought about him. I said, "He gives me hope that God can do wonderful things for us if only we let Him." He smiled at me and nodded his head. A day I'll never forget, as I drove back home. 

Mary's Crying

Faith is falling, hate is rising

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

A chill on my skin

As I watch the world cave in

Can't see the light

With our backs against the sun

Can you believe what we've become

I wish I could wipe away her tears

I wish I could wipe away her tears

Faith is falling, hate is rising

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

Homes are broken, children dying

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

Should I be surprised

When the truth is laced with lies

So lost, so numb

Seems like no one really listens

Seems like no one really cares

Faith is falling, hate is rising

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

Homes are broken, children dying

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

I wish I could wipe away her tears

I wish I could wipe away her tears

Oh... oh... Mary's crying

Oh... oh... Mary's crying

Faith is falling, hate is rising

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

Homes are broken, children dying

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

Oh... oh... Mary's crying

Faith is falling, hate is rising

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

Homes are broken, children dying

Can't you hear Mother Mary crying

I wish I could wipe away her tears...

Conclusion and Note To My Readers

This post concludes my "Singing For Satan" series. I hope you understand why I ended with Scott Stapp. Even those who are "Singing For Satan" are not too far gone that God can't reach them. I never though a Protestant who had lived the life of a pagan would write such a beautiful song about the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. While this is not an endorsement, I find him inspirational. Didn't the great saints of the Church tell us that if one holds a tender devotion to Mary, they can be saved? Perhaps God is leading Scott to the True Faith! I wanted this to end with a positive message; musically speaking, on a high note!

To all my readers: I hope you got something out of this series of posts. I'd appreciate your comments on both the series as a whole and this post on Creed and Scott Stapp in particular. This does not mean I will never again write a post on a musical artist or group. If something strikes me as worthwhile, I will write about it, but not as part of a regular series, or a continuation of this one. I'm starting a new series on a new topic next month, but I'll leave the subject matter a surprise until the first Monday of September. PLEASE COMMENT ON THE SERIES AND/OR THIS FINAL POST. I learn a lot from my readers, and I want to see what you think of this endeavor that stretched out for two years. ---Introibo