Sunday, December 11, 2016

Is CBCP against Christ: A 7-point reply to Mocha Uson


Mocha Uson has written a column in Philippine Star: Is CBCP anti-Christ? I shall highlight some of her statements (though I believe they were written by somebody else with a Protestant faith background) and reply to each one of them.

1. Christianity is founded on love. It espouses the doctrine of loving thy neighbor, not judging others, and forgiveness. However, the way the Philippine Catholic Church has been acting is the total opposite of what Christianity preaches.

Christianity is founded on love, it is true:
For God so loved the world that he gave* his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. (Jn 3:16)
It is also true that Christianity espouses loving thy neighbor, but this is not complete: Christianity also espouses loving God. Loving God and neighbor are two sides of the coin which cannot be separated. As Christ said:
You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 k The second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40* l The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments. (Mt 22:37-40)
And if our love for God conflicts with our love for our neighbor, God should always come first. The story of St. Thomas More would remind us of this:
In 1509, when the new eighteen-year-old king, Henry VIII, married a young Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon, the marriage came with the blessing of Pope Julius II, in the form of a dispensation from an injunction found in the Bible's Leviticus.  The dispensation was deemed necessary because Catherine had been briefly married to Henry's older brother, Arthur, raising the question of whether Henry's marriage violated Leviticus 20:21: "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing...they shall be childless."  The fact that Arthur remained ill throughout the six-month-long marriage until his death, and that therefore the marriage--if Catherine is to be believed--was never consummated, doubtless made the case an easier one for Pope Julius than it otherwise might have been.
By early 1526, however, King Henry's affection had turned from Catherine to the beautiful Anne Boleyn.... Later in the fall, Henry took the unusual step of visiting More at his home in Chelsea to take up again his "great matter."  In a scene memorialized in Robert Bolt's great play, A Man for All Seasons, the King walked the gardens with his arm around the neck of his trusted councilor.  Henry and More differed, in the end, over the matter of papal supremacy.  The King argued that Leviticus made his marriage a crime in God's eyes--and that no Pope had the power to waive the Biblical injunction.  More, on the other hand, accepted papal supremacy as a matter of faith, and tended to view Pope Julius's 1509 dispensation as conclusive. (The Trial of Sir Thomas More)
Because of More's obstinacy, the English Court judged him a traitor. Before he was beheaded, More said: "I die the King's good servant, and God's first."

The actual words of Christ regarding judging others is this:
“Stop judging,* that you may not be judged.b2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. (Mt 7:1-2)
This is not an absolute prohibition, but rather a warning: we must think twice about making judgments, because "the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you." Otherwise, we won't have the judges in courts of laws, and everyone will interpret the law by appealing to their individual consciences to the destruction of society. Actually, Mocha Uson already broke her rule of not being judgmental by saying: "the way the Philippine Catholic Church has been acting is the total opposite of what Christianity preaches." Is this not a form of judgment? So why can Mocha Uson judge and not CBCP?

The power of the bishops to judge comes from the Apostles whose office they assume through the laying of hands (ordination). Pope Francis, for example, is called the Successor of Peter. Each Catholic bishop in the world (and that includes the Philippines) can trace his apostolic succession to one of the Apostles. An apostle ordained a person a bishop who in turn ordained another bishop, etc., down to our present day. Since Christ said to the Peter and the Apostles:
Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.
 The Church is the New Israel. And the judges in the New Israel are Bishops who are the successors of the apostles. Thus, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) can judge.

2. The power of the Catholic Church is one of the things Jose Rizal fought against because the Church was able to use its power and influence in Spain to dictate who should be the Governor General of the Philippines. Because of this they accused Jose Rizal of being a cultist and an enemy who was going against the teachings of the church. You should know that back then fighting against the church could cost you your life or you could be excommunicated.

First, the Catholic Church in the Philippines has power by virtue of Patronato Real which made the King and Queen of Spain patrons of the Church, giving them rights to appoint clerics in exchange for shouldering the costs of the Catholic missions, such as building of churches:
 Upon the return of Columbus from his first trip to America, the rulers of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, immediately asked Pope Alexander VI for documents affirming their right to the recently discovered territory (see alexandrine bulls). Through letters issued in 1493, the Holy Father charged these rulers with the spiritual conquest of the natives of the New World, making concessions so broad and vague that they lent themselves to differing interpretations...Since the rights acquired by the king over the territories of the Indies were not clarified, the grant of general patronage was issued again during the papacy of Julius II. On July 28, 1508, the bull Universalis ecclesiae was issued; it gave the rulers of Castile and León the right in perpetuity to grant permission for the construction of "large churches" and to propose proper persons for the offices and benefices of the cathedrals, collegiate churches, monasteries and other pious places. It stipulated that presentations for benefices decreed in consistory were to be made to the pope and all the rest of the bishops. (Encyclopedia.com)
Second, the Catholic Church has power in the same way that a father has power over his children. Without the fathers of the church who go out to all the villages from the seashore to the mountaintops, baptizing the heathens and teaching them Christian doctrine, there would be no Philippine Nation to speak of: we would either be Muslims now or Pagans worshiping our anitos. We would be still in the mountains headhunting or engaging in gross sexual immorality as documented by Morga in his Sucesos de las Islas de Filipinas which was annotated by Jose Rizal. It is really a tragedy that the children of the Church have now turned against their fathers. As Fr. Horacio de la Costa, SJ puts it:
But look at it another way.   Look at it through the eyes of a Spanish friar who found himself a prisoner of the Army of the Revolution.  He was the last of a long line of missionaries, stretching back to that great defender of Rights, Fray Domingo de Salazar.  They had brought this whole people from primitive tribalism to civilization.  They had raised from stones children of Abraham.  And in the end, the children had turned on their fathers.
It was not only tragic; it was the very essence of tragedy 
–Fr. Horacio de la Costa, “The Priest in the Philippine Life and Society: An Historical View,” in Church and Sacraments, ed. by Ma. Victoria B. Parco (Office of Research and Publications, Ateneo de Manila University, 1990), pp. 192-200.
And third, the Catholic Church has power because Christ gave it the power to bind and loose, and thereby pronounce judgment:
“If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.16* i If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’17j If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18* k Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:15-18)
One of the ways the Catholic Church exercises its power of binding and loosing is in the confessional where the priest absolves your sins, provided that you state them by name and number and you do the required penance to compensate for the damage done by your sin, e.g. return the iPhone that you stole, pay the debts that you owe, return to your first husband, etc. Another way is excommunicating a member of the Church, treating him like a Gentile or a tax collector, i,e., shunned in public and those who are excommunicated cannot receive the Sacraments. If you believe that Christ is the only mediator between God and Man, the Church is the Body of Christ (Eph 5:29-30), then it follows that if you are cut off from the Church through excommunication, you won't be saved. This is the essence of the Catholic doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" or "Outside the Church There is No Salvation":

846....Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

3. One of the notable persons who were excommunicated for fighting against the church was Martin Luther. He fought against the corrupt practice where people must pay for the forgiveness of their sins and for their soul to go to heaven.

This is a simplistic analysis. At the core of Luther's 95 theses is the doctrine of Purgatory which all Catholics must believe:
The first thesis has become famous: "When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, 'Repent,' he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance." In the first few theses Luther develops the idea of repentance as the Christian's inner struggle with sin rather than the external system of sacramental confession.[20] Theses 5–7 then state that the pope can only release people from the punishments he has administered himself or through the church's system of penance, not the guilt of sin. The pope is only able to announce God's forgiveness of the guilt of sin in his name.[21] In theses 14–16, Luther challenged common beliefs about purgatory, and in theses 17–24 he asserts that nothing can be definitively said about the spiritual state of people in purgatory. He denies that the pope has any power over people in purgatory in theses 25 and 26. In theses 27–29, he attacks the idea that as soon as payment is made, the payer's loved one is released from purgatory. He sees it as encouraging sinful greed and impossible to be certain because only God has ultimate power in forgiving punishments in purgatory.[22]
If you are sinless, you go straight to heaven when you die; if you committed an unrepented mortal sin, you go to hell. But what if you committed lesser sins called venial sins? Will you go to heaven or to hell? If these questions are difficult to imagine, let's use the analogy of Pres. Duterte's war against drugs. If you posses illegal drugs, you get killed by the police. If you don't possess illegal drugs, you live. But what does it mean "to possess"? How many kilos of shabu is needed before you can be said "to possess shabu"? Is it 1 kilogram? One teaspoon? One speck? One grain? Do you deserve death if one grain of shabu is found in your clothing? The same is true in After Life: Do you deserve hell if you committed a venial sin, or perhaps a sin of intention but not of deed, as when you get a knife and approach a man to kill him without his knowledge, then change your mind, and not do the deed, as what happened to Hamlet?
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying; and now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven; and so am I revenged. That would be scann'd: a villain kills my father; and for that, (80) I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven. O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.  He took my father grossly, full of bread; with all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May; and how his audit stands who knows save heaven? But in our circumstance and course of thought, 'tis heavy with him. And am I then revenged, to take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and season'd for his passage? (90) No! Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent: when he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed; at game, a-swearing, or about some act that has no relish of salvation in't; then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, and that his soul may be as damn'd and black as hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays: this physic but prolongs thy sickly days. (Shakespeare-online)
That is why the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory is the most consoling thing. If we commit a small sin, we can still go to heaven, except that we have to make amends for our sins if not in this life, then in the life to come in Purgatory. The souls in Purgatory cannot anymore gain merit for themselves, so they rely on us the living to make amends for them, just like if you are sick: you can barely walk or stand or eat, so you rely on others to help you do so. Just like the story of the paralytic in the Gospel:
When Jesus returned to Capernauma after some days, it became known that he was at home.* 2 Many gathered together so that there was no longer room for them, not even around the door, and he preached the word to them.3 They came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 Unable to get near Jesus because of the crowd, they opened up the roof above him. After they had broken through, they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying.5* When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.”* Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves,7 “Why does this man speak that way?* He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?”b8 Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, pick up your mat and walk’?10* But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth”—11 he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home.”12 He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. They were all astounded and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.”
Notice that it was not the faith of the paralytic which made Jesus, as God, forgive his sins and heal him, but rather the faith of the persons who lowered him from the rooftop. It follows then that those in Purgatory can still be forgiven of their sins through the faith of the living. This is the Doctrine of "Communion of the Saints" which we always recite in the Apostles' Creed during Mass: The Church Triumphant (in heaven) and the Church Militant (on earth) help those who are in the Church Suffering (Purgatory). When the souls in Purgatory are freed to go to heaven, they join the Church Triumphant to pray for us the living and of the dead who are still in Purgatory. We all help each other to go to heaven.

Just like in the human body: if most of cells, tissues, and organs of our body are well, then we can easily recover from flu or wounds: the healthy cells help the weak cells. So whatever the healthy cells take to remain healthy also helps in the recovery of the weak cells. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, whatever spiritual good we do, redounds to the rest of the body as well, as when we ingest a medicine in the stomach, and the medicine gets transported to all cells of the body through the veins and arteries. There are three things that we can do to help the poor souls in Purgatory: prayer, almsgiving, and fasting--things we can offer to God for the good of the poor souls. There is also the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. The spiritual works of mercy are (1) instruct the ignorant, (2) counsel the doubtful, (3) admonish sinners, (4) bear wrongs patiently, (4) forgive the sinners, (5) comfort the sorrowing, (5) pray for the living and the dead. Writing this blog post, for example, is a form of the first and second spiritual works of mercy. On the other hand, the corporal works of mercy are (1) feed the hungry, (2) give water to the thirsty, (3) clothe the naked, (4) shelter the homeless, (5) visit the sick, (6) visit the imprisoned, and (7) bury the dead. But what if you cannot do these things? Well, you can give money to charitable institutions like Caritas Manila which specializes on one of these tasks. During the time of Martin Luther, you may also donate for the construction of St. Peter's Basilica, and such donations can be decreed by the Pope to help the poor souls in Purgatory because of Church's power of binding and loosing as we discussed earlier, and this power extends even to those in Purgatory. These donations have a corresponding virtue of lessening the sentence of the souls in Purgatory. In human terms, if they are imprisoned for 40 years, a particular donation can lessen such stay by 1 year or 5 years. This system of indulgences (kindness) may be abused, that is why the Church limited such donations for indulgences only within the span of 8 years--roughly the expected time to gather funds to construct the basilica.

4. Let’s not forget that the church is an organization wherein they have no tax. Allegedly, they have investments from the oligarchs who are being protected by the Aquinos. In the end, it seems like it’s all about the money. Catholic Church without money is a dying church, it has lost a lot of followers due to some issues surrounding some of their priests.In the end, it seems like it’s all about the money. Catholic Church without money is a dying church, it has lost a lot of followers due to some issues surrounding some of their priests.

Let us also not forget that it is not only the Catholic Church which does not pay tax. There is also the Iglesia ni Manalo (INC), Church of Quiboloy, and other Protestant Churches. The schools and universities also do not pay tax. The government decided that those who promote the good of the country in the form of charitable institutions (remember the corporal and spiritual acts of mercy?) should not be taxed.

Surprisingly, it is when the Church has no money that it becomes spiritually more alive, and especially more so if the Church is persecuted and stripped of her possessions, as what happened during the Roman Empire, the Protestant Reformation, and Rise of Communism and Nazism. It was only when the Catholic Church became complacent on its missionary activity and became enamored by worldly things---false ecumenism, Protestant liturgies, Marxist theologies, LGBT advocacy, etc.--that the Church lost its saltiness, so it is now being thrown to the ground to be trampled underfoot. And yet, whenever the Church appears to be dying, the Holy Spirit never fails to raise up saints and new religious movements. The Franciscans were born when the Church became opulent; the Dominicans, during the rise of Albigensian heresy; and the Jesuits, during the Protestant Reformation. In the last 40 years, when the vocations for priesthood and religious life has dried up, we see the rise of religious communities led by the Laity, such as Couples for Christ, Lingkod ng Panginoon, and The Feast.

The Church may have lost followers because of the actions of some of its priests, especially those involving pedophilia and homosexuality. That is why the Catholic Church has recently reaffirmed that those who have homosexual tendencies should be denied the priesthood:
199. In relation to persons with homosexual tendencies who seek admission to Seminary, or discover such a situation in the course of formation, consistent with her own Magisterium, "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'. Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies."
200. "Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem--for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate." [...]
201. In summary, seminarians must be reminded and, at the same time, it must not be kept from them, that "the desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. it belongs to the Church [...] to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation, and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities."
5. If they will claim that they’re fighting for what is right, then why don’t they speak against Sen. De Lima and her affair with Ronnie Dayan who is married? Why do they focus on the inappropriate jokes and remarks of President Duterte? Why do they bring up “Thou shall not kill” with regards to the “EJK” issue but quiet on De Lima’s affair which is against “Thou shall not commit adultery”?

First, we must be clear that adultery and extra-judicial killing are both wrong, because they are against the 6th and 5th Commandments. But we must also recognize the degree of the effects of these sins on the country. De Lima's adultery affects her person alone and the family of him she had relations. But Duterte's extra-judicial killings affect more families, not only of the drug users and pushers, but also of the policemen who carry out such killings. Such killings also destroy the "rule of law" which we, the Sovereign Filipino People, promised to uphold in our Constitution:
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution. (Preamble, Philippine Constitution)
 So that instead of the Constitution, Darwin's Law of Evolution: survival of the fittest, removal of the unfit. This is similar to the Law of Shishio in Rurouni Kenshin, i.e. the flesh of the weak is the food of the strong:
Shishio: I was almost assassinated; when my wounds had finally healed and I tried coming out, the Meiji government had succeeded in ending the violence. Now they who tried to eliminate me won't send a single troop against me for fear of looking weak before the Western powers. This weak government. I cannot leave this country to such a weak government. If the violence was ended, I'll awaken it! I'll seize control! I'll make this country strong. Justice will be served when the country is mine.
Kenshin: But for this justice, blood will flow. The blood of those who now live in peace...
Shishio: Well, after all, in this world the flesh of the weak is the food of the strong. But I never could persuade you of that. (Aoshi2012)
 Like Shishio, Duterte despises the weak Philippine government. And like Shishio, Duterte promotes extra-judicial killings to promote his cause.

6. Now if the very nature of God is love, then why does his “messengers” preach the opposite which is hate and forgiving with conditions? ... Now, should forgiveness come with a condition? If I ask you, do we have to wait for our enemies to ask for forgiveness before we forgive them? I believe that the answer is in Matthew 6: 14-15: “14 For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15: But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” If Jesus himself can forgive his enemies and even asked his Father “forgive them for they do not know what they are doing”…if Jesus himself can forgive regardless of whether they asked for it or not, then who are we to deny that to our enemies?

Question: Can Mocha Uson (or her ghost writer) forgive the Bishops for not forgiving Marcos? If she forgives the CBCP, then there is no more reason for writing an article condemning the CBCP. Isn't forgiveness absolute and unconditional? Does she still have to wait for CBCP to forgive the Marcoses before she can forgive the CBCP?

We have to make distinctions. It is possible for a father to forgive the man who killed his son, as King Priam forgave Achilles for the death of Hector:
I had fifty when Achaea’s sons arrived—nineteen born from the same mother’s womb, others the women of the palace bore me. 610 Angry Ares drained the life of most of them. But I had one left, guardian of our city, protector of its people. You’ve just killed him, as he was fighting for his native country. [500] I mean Hector. For his sake I’ve come here, to Achaea’s ships, to win him back from you. And I’ve brought a ransom beyond counting. So Achilles, show deference to the gods and pity for myself, remembering your own father. Of the two old men, 620 I’m more pitiful, because I have endured what no living mortal on this earth has borne—I’ve lifted up to my own lips and kissed the hands of the man who killed my son. (Iliad, Bk 24)
Here, King Priam did not go to Achilles to seek revenge, but justice: a dead son deserves a decent burial by his own father. Then Achilles remembered his own father whose only son he was, and wept with the king.

It is possible to forgive, but the damage done must be recompensed. If you broke a vase, you must replace it. If you injured a man, you must pay for his hospitalization. If you killed a man, then you must pay the family, because you have killed their bread earner---and the court may also require you to serve your sentence in jail for homicide. This is justice. If this is difficult to imagine, suppose a girl has a boyfriend who failed to remember their anniversary by not giving her flowers or chocolates on that date. Then he told her that he was sorry. And girl will say, "Sorry is not enough." So the man decided to bring her to a fine restaurant and asked a string quartet to play for them while they have a romantic dinner by candlelight. And the girl's anger was appeased. And suppose after a few months of engagement the man did not show up in the wedding, to the disgrace of the bride. Ah, this is a graver fault and a thousand "Sorry"'s would be enough if the deed was intentionally done. The man may have to wait years before the woman is willing to be courted again by the man and the deeds must match his words, e.g. give up his lucrative job abroad or stand in the rain for the whole evening or work without pay in the farm for seven years. Words are cheap. A man is judged by his deeds.

In the case of Pres. Marcos, if justice cannot be obtained because he cannot anymore be prosecuted or sent to jail for the loss of many lives and ill-gotten wealth during Martial Law, we turn to the remaining family of Pres. Marcos to recompense the families of the victims and the return of ill-gotten wealth. What if they are not willing to pay the damages they brought? One small symbolic act is to deprive Pres. Marcos the honor to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Grave of Heroes). Marcos can be given decent burial anywhere in the Philippines---anywhere except in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Otherwise, it would be a contradictory to celebrate EDSA Revolution and at the same time honor Pres. Marcos with the burial befitting heroes. The country cannot celebrate both events and at the same retain its historical sanity.

Who shall give justice when the tyrants of this world die? Who shall deliver justice to them? How will they pay for their crimes? This is the good news of Catholic teaching: there is a way for tyrants to pay in the After Life and that is either through Purgatory or through Hell. And the righteous who are victims of injustice would rise again to a new life, with their bodies healed of their hurts. This is the Resurrection of the Dead. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his Encyclical Spe Salvi:
A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope. No one and nothing can answer for centuries of suffering. No one and nothing can guarantee that the cynicism of power—whatever beguiling ideological mask it adopts—will cease to dominate the world. This is why the great thinkers of the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, were equally critical of atheism and theism. Horkheimer radically excluded the possibility of ever finding a this-worldly substitute for God, while at the same time he rejected the image of a good and just God. In an extreme radicalization of the Old Testament prohibition of images, he speaks of a “longing for the totally Other” that remains inaccessible—a cry of yearning directed at world history. Adorno also firmly upheld this total rejection of images, which naturally meant the exclusion of any “image” of a loving God. On the other hand, he also constantly emphasized this “negative” dialectic and asserted that justice —true justice—would require a world “where not only present suffering would be wiped out, but also that which is irrevocably past would be undone”[30]. This, would mean, however—to express it with positive and hence, for him, inadequate symbols—that there can be no justice without a resurrection of the dead. Yet this would have to involve “the resurrection of the flesh, something that is totally foreign to idealism and the realm of Absolute spirit”[31]. (Spe Salvi)
7. In conclusion, it is also written in the scriptures that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing (“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. Mt 7:15”). They claim to be messengers of God but they are teaching hate, rebellion and self-interest. It is clearly stated that these False Prophets who have the spirit of anti-Christ are pretenders to be light and teaching things that are opposite of the teachings of Christ. 

We really have to watch out for wolves, especially if they are scantily clad in sheep's clothing. Who are the leaders of Protestantism who claim to be messengers of God? Was it King Henry VIII who wishes to make himself the Pope of the Church of England, because the Pope in Rome would not grant him the annulment from his marriage with Catherine, so that he can marry Anne Boleyn whom he would condemn to be killed 3 years later because her pregnancies ended up in miscarriages? Or how about Martin Luther?
His poor physical health made him short-tempered and even harsher in his writings and comments. His wife Katharina was overheard saying, "Dear husband, you are too rude," and he responded, "They are teaching me to be rude."[241] In 1545 and 1546 Luther preached three times in the Market Church in Halle, staying with his friend Justus Jonas during Christmas.[242]
His last sermon was delivered at Eisleben, his place of birth, on 15 February 1546, three days before his death.[243] It was "entirely devoted to the obdurate Jews, whom it was a matter of great urgency to expel from all German territory," according to Léon Poliakov.[244] James Mackinnon writes that it concluded with a "fiery summons to drive the Jews bag and baggage from their midst, unless they desisted from their calumny and their usury and became Christians."[245] Luther said, "we want to practice Christian love toward them and pray that they convert," but also that they are "our public enemies ... and if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so. And so often they do."[246] (Wikipedia: Martin Luther)
 Are these the hallmarks of a holy and forgiving man that we should emulate? Christ said:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.k16 l By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So by their fruits you will know them.(Mt 7:15-20)