By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 30, 2005

There's a priest in Canberra, Australia, who doesn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

So how do Church leaders respond?

  • One prelate says that he is "always a little nervous when expert theologians speak about these things," but concludes that most ordinary Catholics "wouldn't be fussed" by a litte thing like denial of the Resurrection.
  • Another prelate disagrees, arguing that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile."

Now, class, which of those statements was made by the president of the Australian bishops' conference, and which was made by St. Paul?

For extra credit, which of the following men refused to draw a salary from the Church:

  • St. Paul, who thought he would be "the most miserable of men" if the Resurrection had not occurred?
  • The anonymous priest who believes that he is employed by an institution based on an elaborate fraud?
  • Or the archbishop who sounds so relieved that most Catholics won't "wouldn't be fussed" by these minor squabbles.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 10 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Mar. 31, 2005 3:09 PM ET USA

    In medical circles we used to joke that a 'specialist' was one who "knew more and more about less and less..." In the case of this 'expert theologian' I would say that he "knows less and less about more and more..." The study of theology can be dangerous to your faith, if not attended to with requisite humility. Something the Angelic Doctor was well aware of when at the end of his life he received a revelation and subsequently declared that all his writings were as so much straw.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 31, 2005 11:30 AM ET USA

    Yours is perhaps an unfair question. I can't help but wonder how many other Church leaders might hold the same position. If this question and the extra credit question were asked of most "Catholics", how many would get 50% on the test? (A perfect score by the majority would be far too much to hope for.) 'Tis indeed a sad state we've achieved when the most basic tenets of our faith are betrayed by "theologians". God, please save us from ourselves before it is too late.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 31, 2005 10:37 AM ET USA

    The priest also said that, "Instead, those present at the resurrection had experienced the presence of the spirit of Christ." It used to be that the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak. Now the spirit is omnipotent trampling all the will in its path. It even took Vatican II where the Bishops wouldn't go. And, of course, he acknowledged the number one mantra of modern catechesis: experience. Revelation is immaterial, only experience knows, and anyway, Christ is everywhere.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 31, 2005 10:36 AM ET USA

    A priest denying Christs' resurrection doesn't cause the Archbishop much consternation probably because he agrees with him. Let another priest state that unrepentant homosexuals will certainly be condemned to hell for all eternity though. I bet we would see an immediate response from the Archbishop denouncing the priest for his lack of Christian charity.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 31, 2005 10:26 AM ET USA

    Hmmm.... So, it seems the Church is populated by secularists?

  • Posted by: - Mar. 31, 2005 10:12 AM ET USA

    Nuncio (N) to Carrol (C) - Did I hear correctly re priest (P), Lecturer (L), and you? C to N - Well, yes. N to C - Did you correct them? C to N - Well, no. N to C - I'll call (Cdls). Ratzinger and Re and get back to you. ------ N to C - I have spoken to Rat and Re. You are to demand a retraction stat. from from P and L C to N - But, but,... N to C - If you have a problem, tomorrow you are to tender your resignation as a Catholic Bishop, or you are OUT. Don't hold your breath.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 31, 2005 9:13 AM ET USA

    Really! I am fussed, and I think both the priest and the prelate should turn in their collars. But then, collars are so passe these days.

  • Posted by: Sir William - Mar. 31, 2005 6:36 AM ET USA

    “the Most Reverend Carroll said yesterday that he believed the majority of worshippers in Canberra Catholic Churches today "wouldn't be fussed" by the comments.” Which means: Thank God that most Catholics have received that dumbed –down catechism or they might actually know that they should be upset.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 30, 2005 11:42 PM ET USA

    Not to be muddying the waters or anything ... but who authorized the consecration of Archbishop Francis Carroll in the first place? And speaking of St. Paul ... what would he say to him? And what would he say to his boss? It is precisely this kind of non-faith on the part of too many Catholic clergy and bishops that justified the emergent consecration of Catholic bishops (however impolitic, to be sure) carried out by the often vilified Abp Lefebvre.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 30, 2005 11:00 PM ET USA

    Pardon my stupidity, alacrity and bad breath, but should this not, of all examples, be the subject of a heresy case being brought before the CDF? Was this not what that fellow was doing when complaining about Kerry? Is this not much worse, when a prelate apostasizes and openly advocates a heretical doctrine? St Athanasius pray for us. St Fulton Sheen pray for us. St Maximus (your tongue was cut out) Confessor pray for us.