Rabbitgate: Could This Be a Good Thing?

This article is my take on the impact of the latest scandal caused by the latest papal press conference at the back of an airplane: the one during the flight from Manila to Rome, reported around the world under the eminently predictable headline: “Pope Francis: Catholics Don’t Have to Breed Like Rabbits.” Objectors need not pester me or this newspaper with complaints about “bad translation” or the “whole context” of the Pope’s remarks, nor with such quibbles as “the Pope said be like rabbits, not breed like rabbits.” I have watched the entire interview in Italian and compared it with the transcript provided by America magazine and can confirm that the Pope said what he is reported to have said and that its “context” does not diminish but rather only exacerbates the scandal he has caused—yet again—by speaking off-the-cuff.

That is, the scandal caused by Francis telling us what he really thinks, which is supposed to be the great benefit of his insistence on “speaking from the heart” rather than relying on prepared texts like his overly inhibited predecessor.

First of all, “Rabbitgate,” as the Catholic bloggers are calling it , is yet another example of a spectacle without precedent in the entire history of the papacy: a Pope who publicly and incessantly denounces his own subjects on account of their attachment to the doctrines and disciplines of the faith. Never before has the Church had to endure a Pope who condemns members of his own flock because “they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past .” Never before has a Pope exhibited nothing but indulgence for dissenters from Church teaching on faith and morals at the same time he declares contemptuously—in an apostolic exhortation , no less—that “a supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism…”

But whereas Francis has hitherto confined his astonishing denunciations of orthodoxy and orthopraxis to ill-defined groups of the faithful, during the in-flight press conference on the way back from Manila he did something else the Church has never seen before: he denounced a lone woman he had met in a parish somewhere because she trusted in God to see her through an eighth pregnancy that would require a Caesarian section. Indulging for the umpteenth time an apparently insatiable desire to speak to the press, Francis added these infamous words to string of infamous pronouncements the likes of which no Pope before him has ever uttered:

This does not mean that the Christian must make children in series. I rebuked a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant eight times, with seven C-sections (cesareans). “But do you want to leave seven orphans? This is to tempt God! He [Paul VI] speaks of responsible parenthood.

Incredibly enough, the very Vicar of Christ provided the world media with enough identifiers to make it obvious to everyone who knows this woman that the Pope had personally “rebuked” her for being an irresponsible mother who has sinned by tempting God when in fact she is practicing heroic virtue by accepting all of the children God has given her, with the assistance of a procedure modern medicine routinely provides to mothers all over the world facing difficult pregnancies. (We all know and admire Catholic mothers who have given birth to healthy babies via repeated C-sections.)

Antonio Socci drove home the devastating point about this increasingly bizarre pontificate: “if she [the woman] had said she used the Pill or had divorced, he [Francis] would have said ‘Who am I to judge?’” Once again the Pope whose media-driven theme is “mercy and compassion” has displayed an utter lack of mercy and compassion for Catholics striving heroically to live their faith in conformity with the Church’s demanding yet liberating teaching.

But on this occasion our strange Pope went too far even for many of his staunch defenders. Not yet done with the poor woman, Francis went out of his way to denounce her a second time toward the end of the press conference. It came in response to a reporter’s loaded question about whether poverty in the Philippines is related to the fact that the average Filipino woman has three or more children:

That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility [said with emphasis]. “No but I trust in God! [mocking the woman’s presumed conviction].” But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and I know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this.

These words are a font of revelation about the mentality behind them. What sort of Pope would publicly denounce as an irresponsible tempter of God a faithful Catholic woman who trusts in His providence—a trust so obviously rewarded with many children safely delivered? What sort of Pope would use this woman as an example of Catholics who think they must “be like rabbits,” thus lending credence to the world’s vicious caricature of Catholic mothers? (The neo-Catholic bloggers on “Team Bergoglio” desperately wrenched the rabbit remark from its context of the woman Francis cited as an example of rabbit-like breeding, arguing that the Pope was merely generalizing about Catholic teaching).

Further, what sort of Pope would refer to “many, many ways out” of pregnancy, as if parenthood were something for which Catholics require an exit strategy? And what, by the way, does Francis mean by “many, many ways out” in the first place, seeing that abstinence, either permanent or periodic, is the only licit way to avoid conception, and this only for grave reasons?

But the revelations do not end here. Francis continued with these remarks about Filipinos living in poverty:

Another curious thing in relation to this is that for the most poor people [i.e., the poorest—le gente più povere], a child is a treasure. It is true that you have to be prudent here too, but for them a child is a treasure. Some would say “God knows how to help me” and perhaps some of them are not prudent, this is true. Responsible paternity. But let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother who see a treasure in every child.

Why does Francis think it “curious” that for the poorest people a child is a treasure? Why does he say that “even here”—with very poor people—“you have to be prudent,” as if to suggest that the very poor are entitled to be somewhat less “responsible” in begetting children because “for them a child is a treasure” and they have no other treasure? A child is a treasure for everyone, rich or poor, not just “for them [the poorest].” And if every child is a treasure for everyone God deigns to give a child, by what right did Francis twice condemn a woman—evidently not a very poor woman—who has brought eight children into the world with the help of a standard medical procedure?

All in all, the man the press has idolized as a humble and tender pastor of souls by way of invidious comparison with his predecessor has here revealed a rather serious mean streak and not a little condescension toward the poor. And even when the inevitable “clarification” came two days later, with the Pope this time reading a prepared statement at his Wednesday audience address praising large families and affirming that every child is a gift from God, there was not the even the hint of an apology to the woman he had calumniated before the entire world precisely because she had courageously accepted eight gifts from God.

“Rabbitgate” may be as much a turning point in the Bergoglian pontificate as Watergate was for Richard Nixon—a fitting development for a papacy that is being conducted as if it were a presidency . The blogosphere is bristling with the protests of Catholic mothers who have had multiple C-sections and by Catholic parents of eight or more children who are now noticing what this newspaper has been reporting for months: that there is something gravely amiss with this papacy, something the Church has never experienced before.

As a contributor to the resolutely middle-of-the road Aleteia.org has observed : “if Facebook is any indication, many large Catholic families are a lot less enamored of Pope Francis after ‘rabbits.’” While the same people have generally accepted without protest this Pope’s scandalous words and deeds, leaving mostly traditionalists to raise objections, this time Francis has struck rather too close to home for the “conservative” Catholic rank and file and new eyes are being opened. As the same writer observes: “If Francis after rabbits is diminished for you, so be it. Jesus Christ still reigns.” A hearty amen to that.

The widening perception that Francis is out of control may be a crucial factor in solidifying the hierarchical and lay opposition that will be necessary to prevent the train wreck he clearly has in mind for Synod 2015 if the boasting of his handpicked leader of the Council of Eight is any indication. As Cardinal Maradiaga has just declared with all the recklessness that has earned him the title “Mad Dog” Maradiaga:

The Council propelled institutional renovations, following the logic of the Spirit. These reforms encompass all levels of the ecclesial organization… But the institutional and functional changes—alone in themselves— proved insufficient, superficial…. The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible.

As Francis continues to tell us what he really thinks, thus alienating an ever-growing number of the faithful who are awakening to the reality that this papacy is dangerously dysfunctional, we can only pray that what we are seeing is the Holy Ghost writing straight with crooked lines. It may well be that what we must call the threat posed by Bergoglianism will be averted by the blunders of Pope Bergoglio himself.

Pope Publicly Condemns Catholic Mother of Eight as “Irresponsible,” Grants Private Audience to a Same-Sex “Transgender” Couple

Bergoglianism now veers into madness. The same Pope who saw fit to use a press conference to condemn as a reckless tempter of God a Catholic mother of eight has just received in a private audience at his residence a woman attempting to become a man through a sex-change operation and her purported “fiancée.” (One account refers to a “wife,” but the “marriage” apparently is awaiting completion of “Diego’s” “gender-reassignment” procedures.)

The audience with Francis, which took place on January 24 at 5 p.m., came after Francis had twice personally telephoned the woman, who now calls herself Diego, after she had written to Francis to complain that her parish priest had condemned her purported “sex-change” and that she felt “emarginated in the Church.” The first call was made on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and the second in the days before Christmas, when Francis personally invited “Diego” and her so-called fiancée to visit him at the Vatican.

So we have a Pope who grants a personal audience to a “transsexual couple” while refusing to meet with the founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, whose flourishing Catholic order he destroyed, or the lone traditional bishop in Paraguay he summarily removed from a diocese with many vocations because of opposition from a progressive-dominated episcopate, which is driving Catholics from the Church by the millions.

Yes. The Holy Spirit says: “Come out of her, and join the 40,000 Protestant churches I have founded.”

Just another lie of Rome.. Rome is built on the sand of lies Arthur

30,000 Protestant Denominations?

Due to popular request and to the ongoing distortion of figures from uninformed Roman Catholic apologists writing on this issue, I am posting the following excerpt from my forthcoming book, Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002). ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.

When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?

I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.

I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.

First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.

Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).

No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.

In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.

However Barrett has defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.

As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.

Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).

In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.

If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition). In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.