Byline: Matthew Bunson

6 min read

The Church

What Is A Cardinal?

Matthew Bunson

June 9, 2023 7:00 am June 9, 2023

6 min read

30702 views

Comments Off

6 min read

Even though we see them quite often, most Catholics know very little about cardinals. After all, they are not a big topic in catechism classes. What we do know comes…

Even though we see them quite often, most Catholics know very little about cardinals. After all, they are not a big topic in catechism classes. What we do know comes mostly from the media, where cardinals are often depicted as remote and formidable figures in their scarlet robes who help lead the Church and gather together in the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope.

In truth, cardinals are indispensable officials who began their long careers as humble young priests and who, by earning the confidence of the pope, are entrusted with the very future of the Catholic Church through their right to vote in papal elections.

While powerful members of the most select body in the world, cardinals recognize that their tasks on behalf of the pope and the Church are as varied as their talents: they may travel the globe on special missions, administer vital archdioceses and choose new popes. Because of their sway and their closeness to the pope, cardinals are sometimes thought to possess superior spiritual authority to bishops. This is not true, for unlike the office of bishop, the rank of cardinal was not established by Christ. Rather, it came into being out of the need of the popes for reliable advisers.

Put simply, a cardinal is a priest or a bishop who has been named by the pope to what is known as the Sacred College of Cardinals, so-called because it is a body, or college, of Church officials. Membership bestows no heightened spiritual authority, but the cardinals have as their two chief duties assisting the pope in the government of the vast worldwide Church and, above all, electing each new pontiff whom they serve. By ancient custom, they are called “princes” because of the diplomatic status their position gives them and also because in previous centuries many of the members belonged to the great noble families of Europe. Today most cardinals come from truly humble origins.

The central part played by the cardinals can be seen in the origin of their name, from the Latin word cardo , meaning a hinge or pivot, denoting that they are the key counselors, or pivots, for the whole Church.

Kinds of Cardinals

For many centuries, certain laymen were also made cardinals. This practice was finally abolished in 1917 when Church law made it necessary for all cardinals to be “priests of outstanding learning, piety, judgment and ability.” To add to the significance of cardinals in the Church, in 1962 Pope John XXIII commanded that each cardinal should be consecrated a bishop if he was not already one. The pope, however, may permit a new cardinal to be appointed without episcopal consecration.

Today three types of cardinals remain. Cardinal bishops originated out of the actual bishops of the suffragan dioceses surrounding Rome, the so-called suburbicarian sees — that is, the dioceses neighboring Rome. Today cardinal bishops are senior members of the College of Cardinals who are engaged in full-time service in the Roman Curia. The patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches are also assigned rank among the cardinal bishops.

Cardinal priests today are officials of the Roman Curia or bishops whose dioceses are outside Rome, such as the Archbishops of Chicago, Paris, New York and Mexico City. They hold title to a particular church in Rome, a historical reminder of the earlier custom of the clergy of Rome participating in the election of the pope.

Cardinal deacons are titular bishops assigned to full-time service in the Roman Curia or are theologians honored by the pope for their contribution to the Church. Cardinal deacons are reminiscent of the seven deacons who once administered the districts of Rome and the deacons who assisted in the papal household. They hold title to assignment to one of the deaconries of Rome.

Cardinals and Consistories

The pope alone decides who will be made a cardinal. Any priest can be named to the college, and all new members receive a formal document, called a biglietto (literally “ticket”) informing them of the honor. They are then enrolled formally into the Sacred College through an elaborate ceremony in Rome called a consistory.

The number of cardinals has varied considerably over the centuries. During the Middle Ages, it was not unusual for there to be a mere handful; at one point there were only four choosing a new pope. Pope Sixtus V (r. 1585-1590) decreed that there should be 70 members, a number that was unchanged until 1958, when Pope Blessed John XXIII increased it by five. That number grew steadily, so that today there are around 180. By papal decree, no more than 120 are eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope, although it has been set aside a few times, especially during the reign of Pope John Paul II. At the age of 80, cardinals lose the right to take part in any papal election, but their counsel is still prized by the pope.

Symbols of the Cardinals

Most people think that cardinals wear red. Cardinals actually wear scarlet, a custom that began in a formal sense in 1245 when Pope Innocent IV bestowed the famed red hat upon the cardinals. Scarlet reminds the cardinals that they must be willing to give of themselves for the Church, even to the point of shedding their blood.

New cardinals receive several symbols of their new title: a zucchetto, a biretta and a ring. A scarlet zucchetto (or skullcap) and scarlet biretta (a four-cornered silk hat) are both placed upon the cardinals’ heads by the hand of the pope. The ring is a symbol of a cardinal’s dignity, pastoral zeal and communion with the See of Peter.

The Cardinals’ Oath

Below is a translation of the oath of fidelity and obedience to the pope and his successors, pronounced by the cardinals at the time they receive the biretta, or cardinal’s hat:

I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and His Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff [current pope’s name], and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law.

So help me Almighty God.

[Translation by Zenit.]

Comments Off

2 min read

Saints

St. John of Ávila

Matthew Bunson

March 15, 2023 11:06 pm March 15, 2023

2 min read

6559 views

Comments Off

2 min read

Beloved as the so-called Apostle of Andalusia, John of Ávila was a Spanish mystic reformer and brilliant preacher. He was born near Toledo, Spain, to a Jewish family and studied…

Beloved as the so-called Apostle of Andalusia, John of Ávila was a Spanish mystic reformer and brilliant preacher. He was born near Toledo, Spain, to a Jewish family and studied law at Salamanca (1514-1515) before being drawn to a religious life. For three years, he adhered to a life of prayer and austerity before studying theology at Alcalá under the great Spanish Dominican Domingo Soto (1494-1560). Ordained in 1525, he initially prepared for missionary work in Mexico, but in 1528 Archbishop Hernando de Contreras of Seville asked him to remain in Spain to revive the faith in Andalusia. Preaching from 1529, he soon attracted huge crowds with his sermons and was investigated by the Spanish Inquisition on charges of heretical teaching of excessive rigorism, denunciations of wealth and exaggerations. Acquitted and acclaimed in 1535, he continued his Andalusian ministry.

After nine years, he returned to Seville and then preached in Córdoba, Granada and numerous towns throughout the kingdom. Renowned for his sermons, he was an ardent proponent of clerical reform, especially concerning celibacy, and directly influenced such future saints as Francis Borgia, Luís of Granada, John of God and Teresa of Ávila. An associate of the Jesuits, he did much to foster the growth of the order in Spain, dying before he could fulfill his hope of becoming a member. Among his writings are Audi Filia (c. 1530), a treatise on Christian perfection addressed to a young nun, Doña Sancha Carillo, and spiritual letters.

Beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1894, he was canonized on May 31, 1970, by Pope Paul VI. He was also declared patron of the Spanish diocesan clergy in 1946 by Pope Pius XII and has long been held as a role model for priests. Pope Paul VI said of him: “John did not doubt. He was conscious of his vocation. He had faith in his priestly election.”

On Aug. 20, 2011, Pope Benedict announced during a trip to Spain that he would declare St. John a Doctor of the Church. He said: “With great joy, here in this Cathedral Church of Santa María La Real de la Almudena … I will shortly declare St. John of Ávila a Doctor of the universal Church. In making this announcement here, I would hope that the word and the example of this outstanding pastor will enlighten all priests and those who look forward to the day of their priestly ordination. I invite everyone to look to St. John of Ávila, and I commend to his intercession the bishops of Spain and those of the whole world, as well as all priests and seminarians.”

Comments Off

6 min read

Papacy

Was There A Woman Pope?

Matthew Bunson

July 19, 2022 11:05 am July 19, 2022

6 min read

32219 views

Comments Off

6 min read

There’s a narrow street in Rome on the route between the Lateran Basilica and the Vatican that for many years in the Middle Ages was shunned by the popes. Rather…

There’s a narrow street in Rome on the route between the Lateran Basilica and the Vatican that for many years in the Middle Ages was shunned by the popes. Rather than chance journeying down its dark way, the pontiffs made certain that all processions went around it.

The reason the popes tried so hard to avoid one particular street? It was here, the story goes, the shocking discovery was made in the year 858 that Pope John VIII — who had already reigned for two years — was actually a woman.

How the papal court learned the truth was even more scandalous, for the female pope gave birth to a child while in procession to the Lateran and was promptly stoned to death.

According to the myth, this female pope, called forever after “Pope Joan,” was originally from Mainz, Germany, and had made her way to Athens as a young woman in the company of a lover. As she had a great aptitude for scholarship, she disguised herself as a man and became proficient in law, theology and philosophy.

Having won notoriety for her learning, she was soon invited to Rome where, still pretending to be a man, she was ordained and rose swiftly in the papal service. When Pope Leo IV died, she was promptly elected bishop of Rome around 855 and served for two years, seven months and four days before her true identity was revealed.

Her downfall was her love for an official in the Curia. She gave birth to his child before she could reach the safety of the Lateran Palace, where the newborn would be hidden from the eyes of the world.

Absolute Fiction

Truth be told, of course, the tale of Pope Joan is an absolute fiction and has long been dismissed by all reputable scholars. Still, the spurious story has been believed by many people over the centuries, and, not surprisingly, it was adopted by Protestant polemicists in the 16th century to promote anti-papal sentiment. It has found new believers even today.

The simple fact is this: There’s not a single piece of historical evidence to support the claim that Joan ever existed or that there was ever a female pope. The very date of the hypothetical election makes the story easily dismissed, for the interregnum between Popes Leo IV and Benedict III was much shorter than two years (it lasted only a few weeks).

Then there is the curious fact that no legitimate historical source exists that mentions a woman pontiff until the middle of the 13th century, some 400 years later. Had such a scandal occurred, the many enemies of the popes during the Middle Ages would certainly have made great use of it.

The legend had its actual start not in the ninth century, when it allegedly happened, but in the 13th century, thanks to the flamboyant account of a female pope by two Dominican chroniclers, Jean de Mailly and Stephen of Bourbon.

The fairy tale was soon spread with greater embellishments through the writings of the Polish Dominican Martin of Troppau, later in the 1200s.

Much as it is today, once the lie was told, popular culture embraced it, and the idea of Pope Joan caught the imagination of writers, satirists and clowns in the medieval carnivals who lampooned popes and bishops to the amusement of the common folk.

With the start of the Reformation in the 16th century, the old urban legend was given new life as a weapon against the papacy. Such was the widespread retelling of the story that in 1601 Pope Clement VIII felt it necessary to issue a formal statement that Pope Joan never existed.

Scholarly Debunkers

Pope Clement was not alone in his concern. In 1587 the French historian and jurist Florimond de Raemond published the book Erreur populaire de Pape Jane (“The Popular Error of Pope Joan”). With remarkable attention to historical and logical detail, Florimond destroyed the notion of a female pope, and the book itself became something of a bestseller that was published in 15 editions over the next century.

Just as important was the work of the 17th-century French historian David Blondel. His research concluded that Pope Joan was a total invention and perhaps had its origins in a satire related to Pope John XI, who died by violence at a young age in 935. What made Blondel’s contribution all the more significant, however, was that he was a Protestant.

Against the frequent accusation that the popes had merely ordered the true accounts to be censored or removed from the histories, the opposite is apparent from the various records found throughout Europe. The annals and official papal lists demonstrate changes from time to time, but the alterations were clearly not to remove the mention of some female Pope John VIII.

Instead, the changes are actually much later additions to the texts (at the bottom of the page or in the margins) inserting references to a female pontiff by someone hoping to include salacious stories about the popes or to perpetuate the myths of an earlier age.

Amazingly, the fable of Pope Joan still endures. It is dredged up these days by secularists and anti-Catholics in the wake of “The Da Vinci Code” and especially by those working to change the teachings of the Church on the ordination of women.

In late 2005, for example, the ABC television program “Primetime Live” broadcast a breathless documentary entitled “On the Trail of Pope Joan,” and several recent books have treated the subject as a serious historical possibility.

Fortunately, modern scholars are just as adamant as Florimond and Blondel were in their eras: Pope Joan never existed, regardless of anti-Catholic wishful thinking.

As for the dreaded street in Rome, popes in the Middle Ages did avoid it. But they were not thinking of Pope Joan. Several pontiffs were assassinated along its path by enemies of the Church, and the later popes wanted both to escape a similar end and to honor the memory of their fallen predecessors.

Comments Off

12 min read

Science

The Truth About Galileo

Matthew Bunson

December 11, 2019 7:22 am December 11, 2019

12 min read

12584 views

Comments Off

12 min read

On a star-filled night in Venice in late autumn 1609, the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei first used a telescope of his own design to gaze at the heavens and made…

On a star-filled night in Venice in late autumn 1609, the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei first used a telescope of his own design to gaze at the heavens and made discoveries that literally changed how the world was viewed. As part of the International Year of Astronomy’s celebration of the event four centuries ago, the Vatican has honored the work — and the faith – of the great astronomer of Pisa and has released an updated edition of the documents surrounding his famous “trials” before the Holy Office.

For nearly four centuries, even after the apology of Pope John Paul II in 1992, anti-Catholic critics have perpetuated the myth of the Galileo affair. Catholics need to keep talking about Galileo, but not merely to set the record straight. At the heart of the myth is the relationship between faith and science, and nurturing that relationship is impossible if the misinformation about Galileo is allowed to persist.

As Cardinal Paul Poupard, the former head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, lamented in a recent interview, “This is a myth, but myths pervade history and are not easily eliminated.”

The Galileo myth began not in Venice in 1609, but many years before in Poland, where the devout Catholic priest and scientist Nicolaus Copernicus (d. 1543) labored to prove the ancient theory of heliocentrism — the idea that the sun and not the earth was the center of the universe.

Heliocentrism Discussed

Copernicus was not merely supported in his work by Catholic scientists, including the Jesuits in Rome; in 1543 he actually dedicated his masterwork on the theory, “On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs,” to Pope Paul III. Indeed, Church officials raised no major objections as long as heliocentrism was presented as a hypothesis and not undisputed fact.

Copernicus, however, allowed the formal publication of the book only on his deathbed because he knew he would be assailed by Protestants and scientists alike. Martin Luther condemned heliocentrism as it seemed to contradict a literal interpretation of Scripture, such as Psalms 93 (“he has made the world firm, not to be moved”) and 104 (“You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever”).

But even more important, almost all scientists of the time considered the notion ridiculous. As far as they were concerned, both Aristotle in the fourth century B.C. and the great astronomer Claudius Ptolemy in the second century A.D. had settled the issue, and using the mechanics of the universe as they were then known, they could seemingly verify that the earth was the center of the universe.

How was it possible, then, that Galileo was dragged before the Inquisition if the Church was not opposed to progress? The answer rests in the personality of the astronomer from Pisa, Italy.

Prior to his first encounter with the telescope in 1609, Galileo had won renown as an outstanding scientist and the author of a series of laws on falling bodies. Drawn to new scientific advances, he was fascinated by the telescope, which had made its appearance in Holland. He wasted no time in building one for himself, improving its range and taking credit for the invention.

What Galileo Saw

What Galileo saw when he peered through the lenses was a shattering experience for a methodical mind raised in the Aristotelian universe. The moon was not a perfect sphere as he had been taught. It was rough and dotted with great valleys and jagged mountains. Jupiter had at least four of its own moons, and Venus had phases, meaning that it had to be circling the sun and not the earth.

Galileo’s announcement of his discoveries was met with initial doubt and then great excitement by the Jesuit scientists in Rome, although they were not yet ready to embrace the Copernican theory as fact. They preferred the hypothesis of another astronomer, Tycho Brahe, that the planets save for the earth orbited the sun. Galileo was nevertheless given a jubilant welcome to Rome in 1611 and was warmly received by Pope Paul V.

Galileo then returned to Florence to continue his research, but here his irascibility betrayed him, for he gave himself to the cause of convincing the world to embrace the Copernican theory.

The crusade on which he embarked proved a difficult one as scientists were thoroughly committed to the geocentric hypothesis, and Galileo lacked sufficient empirical proof of his contention (the theory was not proven for another century).

Undaunted, Galileo wrote tracts and pamphlets belittling his enemies as children or imbeciles with their heads in the clouds.

His intemperate manner soon caused new problems. He chose to disregard the warnings of his friends across Italy and moved the discussion out of the realm of science and into theology by attacking the criticism that the hypothesis contradicted a literal interpretation of Scripture.

In his famed “Letter to Castelli,” Galileo cited arguments by both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas that Scripture can rely on figurative language and does not intend to teach science, or, as the dictum attributed to the Church historian Cardinal Cesare Baronius suggested, the Holy Spirit intends “to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

In this he anticipated later biblical theology (such as Pope Leo XIII’s 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu). But theologians in 1616 were still dealing with the catastrophe of the Protestant Reformation and were little disposed to accept some interpretation of Scripture from the acerbic astronomer.

Still, no less a personage than Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine declared that Galileo was perfectly free to maintain Copernicanism as a working hypothesis and added that if there were proof that the earth orbited the sun, “then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary.”

Unwilling to let the matter rest, Galileo forced the issue by going to Rome to batter his critics into submission. The exasperated Pope Paul V turned the matter over to the Holy Office.

Initial Adjudication

Galileo was not personally condemned, but he received from the hand of Cardinal Bellarmine a remonstrance that omitted the word “heresy” and insisted that he neither hold nor defend the theory. Curiously, an addendum never seen by Galileo was inserted into his file — perhaps by an excessively officious secretary in the Holy Office — that he should abstain altogether from teaching or defending the opinion and even from discussing it.

There the matter rested until 1623 when Galileo’s longtime friend and protector, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, was elected pope and took the name Urban VIII. Encouraged by his friend’s election, Galileo felt free to publish his famous “Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems,” a subtle defense of Copernicanism.

This work did not violate the technical requirements of the 1616 injunction, but it did exceed the dubious memo added to the file. Galileo used the work to humiliate the followers of Aristotle and Ptolemy and partly based one of the main participants in the dialogue, the dimwitted figure of Simplicio who speaks in defense of the geocentric theory, on some of the friendly arguments offered by Pope Urban. Feeling betrayed by Galileo, the Pope allowed a new inquiry.

The increasingly frail 68-year-old scientist was brought back to Rome in 1632, and the session before two Holy Office representatives has passed into legend as the dark moment when the Church declared war on reason.

Galileo was not imprisoned in a dungeon of the Holy Office. He resided in a pleasant apartment and his meals were prepared by the chef from the Florentine embassy. The “trial” ended with Galileo commanded to abjure the theory and remain silent in keeping not with Cardinal Bellarmine’s request but the terms of the addendum.

He was then permitted to lead a comfortable life and continued to conduct significant scientific studies. He died in 1642 with the sacraments and a penitent’s prayer on his lips.

Today’s Propaganda

The Holy See has been accused of forcing Galileo to recant under pain of torture and proclaiming infallibly that the earth is the center of the universe.

This is pure propaganda. Galileo was at no time threatened with torture, and the pope issued no infallible statement. Rather, the Holy Office rendered an essentially canonical decision aimed at disciplining a Catholic they feared might be leading the faithful into confusion and who was lecturing the Church as to what should be believed.

The Church never declared the Copernican theory a heresy, nor was the decree deemed an irreformable one. In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV granted an imprimaturto the first edition of the complete works of Galileo. In 1757, a new edition of the Index of Forbidden Books allowed writings that supported the Copernican theory.

Unquestionably, while Galileo was given a relaxed imprisonment, it was nevertheless a form of incarceration, and that was unjust. But the key issue for Catholics in the Galileo affair is the relationship between Church leaders and science. That relationship proved dysfunctional in the case of Galileo.

To understand what went wrong, Pope John Paul II, in 1981, established a commission to reevaluate the Vatican’s dealings with Galileo. In 1992, the commission concluded that the incident was the result of “tragic mutual incomprehension” between the scientist and theologians who “failed to grasp the profound nonliteral meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith.”

Today, the Church can speak forcefully on the mutual relationship that must exist between faith and reason, and why Catholics are obligated by truth to work courageously to promote that bond. Refuting false notions about the past is one aspect of our mission.

As Pope John Paul wrote in 1988 in a memorable letter to the director of the Vatican Observatory:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish. For the truth of the matter is that the Church and the scientific community will inevitably interact; their options do not include isolation.”

Pope John Paul ll on the Galileo Myth

Taken from the English translation of Pope John Paul II’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which appeared in L’Osservatore Romano Nov. 4, 1992.

From the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment down to our own day, the Galileo case has been a sort of “myth,” in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church’s supposed rejection of scientific progress, or of “dogmatic” obscurantism opposed to the free search for truth.

This myth has played a considerable cultural role. It has helped to anchor a number of scientists of good faith in the idea that there was an incompatibility between the spirit of science and its rules of research on the one hand and the Christian faith on the other. A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past….

From the Galileo affair we can learn a lesson which remains valid in relation to similar situations which occur today and which may occur in the future….

In Galileo’s time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points has the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo’s position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them….

There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition. The two realms are not altogether foreign to each other, they have points of contact. The methodologies proper to each make it possible to bring out different aspects of reality.

Comments Off

7 min read

Religion

What Should Catholics Know About Mormons?

Matthew Bunson

February 26, 2019 4:27 pm February 26, 2019

7 min read

14047 views

Comments Off

7 min read

For Catholics, two questions frequently come up in talking about the Mormon faith. Is it a Christian religion? And is Mormon baptism valid? Interestingly, those two questions are closely related…

For Catholics, two questions frequently come up in talking about the Mormon faith. Is it a Christian religion? And is Mormon baptism valid? Interestingly, those two questions are closely related and have been a concern to Church leaders over the last decade because of the controversial Mormon practice of baptizing the dead.

Who Was Joseph Smith?

Statue of Joseph Smith Jr. on Temple Square in Salt Lake City. Shutterstock photo

The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was born in Vermont in 1805 and was living in New York when, in 1820, God the Father and Jesus Christ supposedly appeared to him and declared that he had been chosen to restore God’s kingdom on earth. Three years later, he claimed to have been visited by an angel named Moroni who revealed the existence of the authentic Gospel that had been taught by the Risen Christ to a lost branch of Israel residing in the Americas prior to the discovery of the New World by Columbus. He received this ancient record in 1827 on a set of golden plates, and the result of the translation was the Book of Mormon, published three years later at Palmyra, N.Y. Smith began preaching his new religion in western New York and northern Pennsylvania and soon after organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (today, often referred to as LDS) at Fayette, N.Y.

Smith and his followers found, not surprisingly, resistance to their new creed, and they were expelled from state after state. In June 1844, Smith was killed with his brother Hyrum by a mob in a jail in Carthage, Ill.

The remaining Mormons, led by Brigham Young, pushed westward and ultimately settled in Utah. In fact, one of the first encounters between Catholics and Mormons occurred in the fall of 1846, when the famed Jesuit missionary Pierre De Smet met the migrating Mormons near Council Bluffs, Mo. They asked many questions about his travels across the West and were much impressed with his description of the Great Salt Lake. Father De Smet did not claim that they chose Salt Lake to be their headquarters because of him, but choose it they did. They founded Salt Lake City and established themselves as a theocracy. Poor relations with the U.S. government over such issues as polygamy and the theocratic government climaxed in the Utah Mormon War (1857-1858), which ended with the arrival of a non-Mormon governor and the resignation of Young as head of both church and state. Utah entered the Union in 1896. Polygamy was finally abolished in 1890, with further prohibitions issued over the next years. Today, there are some 14 million members around the world, with Mormon missionaries sent out to many different countries.

Three Gods into One

In 2001, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) responded to a question about whether Mormon baptisms should be considered valid by Catholics. The answer was in the negative (see sidebar). And one of the main reasons for this conclusion was that LDS theology is polytheistic.

At first look, the baptismal formula used by Mormons appears Trinitarian: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” However, as the CDF determined, this is not a true invocation of the Trinity, because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the teachings of the Latter-day Saints “are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony” (L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, Aug. 1, 2001, Page 4).

As the CDF further pointed out, God the Father was once a mortal man from another planet who, through a series of progressions, achieved divinity. He and his wife, the heavenly mother, share the responsibility of creation and have sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn son, Jesus Christ, equal to men, “has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us.”

The Celestial Kingdom

There are numerous other points of divergence between LDS and Catholic beliefs.

Mormons accept the idea of celestial marriage, a form of marriage that “seals” the husband and wife and their children together through eternity. The afterlife consists of a complex set of destinations for spirits, a Celestial Kingdom for the faithful and a spirit prison for sinners. The Celestial Kingdom is a three-tiered heaven: the highest heaven is for those believers sealed by celestial marriage; the second is for those who lived honorably but not heroically in their testimony of Christ; and the third is for unrepentant sinners. Even the sinners, however, will eventually be saved through the atonement of Christ, and sinners in the spirit prison and the lower levels of heaven may advance through accepting Mormon baptism. Missionary work also continues among those in spirit prison, which is why the Mormons famously baptize the dead by proxy.

These teachings, of course, are subject to some changes over time as the LDS believe in ongoing public revelation through the current leadership of the church, a notion entirely contrary to the Church’s clear teaching that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 66, 73), although private revelations can still be given which in no way change or correct the Faith.

Common Ground

Despite these differences, there is much cultural ground that Catholics find with the members of the LDS. Mormons are supportive of a strong family life and are noted for their opposition to abortion and gay marriage. These make for considerable points of commonality, and we should be mindful always to treat our Mormon sisters and brothers with charity and justice. As the CDF noted in its assessment of Mormon baptism: “Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.”

The Question of Mormon Baptism

LDS teaching denies both that baptism was instituted by Christ and the existence of original sin. Mormons perform baptism only for those have reached the age of reason and are at least 8 years old. Notably, they claim that infant baptism was one of the ways that the Church sank into apostasy in the first centuries and that Catholic baptisms are invalid.

In 2001, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded to questions about the validity of Mormon baptisms in the negative. The response cited several problems with Mormon baptism:

The form: Because of the severe problems in the doctrine of the Trinity, the form was judged invalid.

The intention of the celebrating minister: Owing to the problems with the form and Mormon beliefs regarding baptism and original sin, the minister of the LDS cannot do what the Catholic Church does in conferring baptism.

The Mormon church also practices baptism for the dead, the belief that those who have died as non-Mormons can become Mormons in the afterlife through baptism by proxy. This is one reason why Mormons are so active in genealogy and also why in 2008 the Congregation for Clergy urged bishops around the world to refuse the Mormon genealogical society access to the parish registers as there is the risk that deceased Catholics might be “re-baptized.” This has also been condemned by other faiths, such as Jewish leaders who consider it dis-respectful to the dead, especially victims of the Holocaust.

Comments Off