All Roads Ministry

We receive a few criticisms from time to time which are of the following type: "Your facts are correct, but your technique is too harsh." A variation is: "You seem more interested in scoring points than in converting those you deal with." 

For those of you who (incorrectly) think this way, here is my defense. But first, a confession. 

I plead guilty to enjoying being the type of person who is always right. I enjoy deflating fools and defeating frauds. I like winning arguments, crushing enemies, and exposing liars. And as far as I know, the only way I can do this totally morally is to do it while defending God's revelation. 

I hold that enjoying something does not make it wrong. As a matter of fact, the best way to prepare for heaven is to learn, while on Earth, to enjoy doing good things. And defending and evangelizing the Faith is always a good thing. To put it another way, I enjoy doing a good thing. 

So much for the admission: I like what I do, and that's one reason why I do it. 

I am harsh because I follow the example of Jesus. When dealing with those who should have accepted Him as God, He was harsh; not gentle. He confronted the Jews (who had been prepared by the prophets and the Old Testament) with a harsh choice: total acceptance or total rejection. He refused to answer the questions of the Pharisees, or to give evidence by way of signs. His approach was harsh. He called them names, labeled them as hypocrites, sons of Satan, liars, etc. I often wonder why no one seems to read what Jesus actually says in the Bible. Why do Catholics not pay attention to His words before they accuse me of being improper in my approach? 

Now understand this: every single Protestant with which I deal, without exception, claims to be a committed believer with an above average relationship with God. And yet every one of them, without exception, advances lies as truth and attributes these lies to divine inspiration. Every one of these people has studied God's word and then lies about it. 

I say "lie" rather than "error" for a very simple reason: God cannot lie. He cannot tell the Catholic one "truth" and the Protestant another. The Blessed Mother was always a virgin. That is a fact. And it is known to us because God Himself has told us. If someone states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not a virgin, then he is in error. If he states that God told him this, then he lies, for he states that God did something which God did not do. 

"Ah", the objector might say, "certainly the man is in error, but could he not simply and honestly be mistaken? An honest mistake sincerely held is not a lie." 

I agree. They are not sincere. Sincerity means, by definition, a commitment to the truth. And Jesus tells us that everyone committed to the truth hears His voice. If these people were committed to the truth (i.e. sincere), then they would hear the voice of Jesus, as the Church does. Either that is true or Jesus lied. It is that simple and that harsh. There is no other alternative. 

"Well," the skeptic says, "although Jesus speaks to those who are committed to truth, can we not sometimes hear Him incorrectly? I mean, we are not perfect, are we? Honest men can and do disagree, don't they?" 

Well, I suggest that you think about this -- and I'll give you the answer in the next paragraph. 

We have disposed of a few objections and shall now concentrate on the issue of the good-hearted but misguided fool. Briefly, the objection is this: "not everyone has the benefit of being born a Catholic. Protestants have no reason to doubt their teachers and leaders. Therefore, they are wrong, of course( but it is not their fault. After all, not everyone is as smart as you are." 

Let's deal with the "good faith Protestant", the fellow who through no fault of his own does not know that the Catholic Church is the true one. This is the old issue of "invincible ignorance". 

To set our reply in context, here is an analogous situation: Joe suffers severe stomach pains, and goes to his doctor. The doctor diagnoses an ulcer and prescribes medication and a restricted diet. Joe follows his doctor's orders to the letter, but the pain continues. 

The doctor may have misdiagnosed the condition, or prescribed the wrong treatment. Perhaps he secretly hates Joe and is trying to make him suffer, or maybe there is no treatment for Joe. No matter what, Joe is still in pain. 

Joe may return to the doctor for further treatment, but, if after repeated efforts by the doctor, Joe is still not cured, Joe has a few choices: (1) he can live with the pain; (2) he can seek another doctor; (3) he can deny the fact that he suffers. The point is that he has not been cured. 

Unless he has some spiritual reason to endure the pain, Joe should look for another doctor. A new doctor may not succeed either. If so, then Joe is presented with the same choices as before. He either searches until he finds a cure, or he dies trying -- or he's an idiot who deserves his pain. 

Take this and apply it to the Protestant: his own church tells him that it is "always reforming, never reformed" (i.e. always wrong, never right). It tells him that it does not have a monopoly on truth, or grace, or anything good. It tells him that it was founded over a thousand years after Jesus lived. It tells him that he can remarry after divorce, when Jesus forbade it, and that truth does not really matter, whereas Jesus is Truth. 

Protestantism tells any honest man, any intelligent man, that it is not the place to find God (there are no substantial differences between the "theology" of the Fundamentalist and that of the "main-line" denominations. The message is exactly the- same; the style is all that is different.). So how can he stay there and call himself a person of "good faith"? 

Moreover, as Saint Augustine stated, man is destined to be with God and we remain restless until we rest with Him. Besides the physical pain of hell, the major suffering is caused by the loss of what man should have. It follows that the farther man is from God (and His presence throughout time, the Church) the more uneasiness he must suffer. If this is not true, then any church, and creed, any "truth", can satisfy man's longing for God. 

Thus, the Protestant becomes like Joe: he suffers and knows that he has found no cure. What must this man in "good faith" do? He must move on, and search for another answer. 

Will he find Catholicism? If he "searches the scriptures" he will find a series of doctrines necessary for any church which follows ChriSaint He will never find these in Protestantism. Therefore, he will either give up and not find it because his earliest teachers prejudiced him against Catholicism, or he will keep searching until he finds the True Church and joins it.

 "But what about the fact that his teachers told him that Catholics worship statues and make the Blessed Mother a goddess? Will he not continue to believe these untruths and settle for something else?" 

To this there are two answers: 

1. These teachers have been discredited. By the time he reaches the age of reason, every Protestant knows that the preacher, the minister, the professor, the author, the scholar, is wrong. Like Joe, he can continue to believe fools and liars, or he can deny his pain, or he can cease being a Protestant. Anyone who continues to follow the advice of a bad doctor is a person who seeks pain and illness.

 2. Jesus repeatedly stated that we can come to know Him. Anyone who is committed to the truth hears His voice. Anyone who seeks will find. His followers will be set free by truth. His followers will be led to all truth. Either Jesus meant this or He did not. If He did, then anyone can and should find the true deposit of faith if he wills to do so. If Jesus did not mean it, then we'd better become Protestants - they hold that He didn't mean what he said. 

"OK", says our objector, "I'll agree with that. But what about the fellow who comes to that conclusion after a long search and, on his way to the church to be baptized, is run down by Mario Cuomo?" 

Once again, there are two answers. First, listen to T12 The Last Judgement. Second, realize that"accidents" such as this do not happen without God's knowledge. The God who would allow a man to get that close and then kill him so that he could still go to hell is the god of Calvin and Luther. He is not the God of Catholicism.

"You are an obstruction yourself", the critic moans like an old woman. "You talk too much about hell and too much about their chances of damnation. You should show charity. Didn't you ever read Saint Paul in 1 Cor. 13? If you turn people off, what good have you done? You don't convert people that way. Human nature is such that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar." Then he puts his hands on his hips and pouts.

Now we deal with the objection based on the issues of charity and damnation. Briefly, the objection goes something like this: "You deal with damnation too much. This scares people off. Stick to charity and kindness. One catches more flies with honey..." (yawn) -Why does anyone want to catch flies? 

In 1 Cor. 13, Saint Paul gives a description of love; it's one that many couples use as a reading when they are married. Saint Paul, inspired by God, states that love is patient, polite, and kind. Therefore, our detractors say, ARM goes against Scripture. Therefore, ARM is wrong. 

Let us deal with another part of the same letter (6:5), "I say this in an attempt to shame you." And in Phil. 3:17, the same inspired Saint Paul tells all Christians forever to "be imitators of me, my brothers. Take as your guide those who follow the example that we set." 

Notice that Saint Paul intentionally rebukes Christians (or those who claim to be Christians) to cause them shame, and he commands us to do the same. Nowhere in that famous chapter 13 is there a description of behavior. It is an inspired description of love (and of God). Therefore -- objectors take note! -- it is we who imitate Saint Paul. 

Of course, Scripture can be quoted to attempt to prove certain points. Our point here is that we at ARM are on absolutely firm scriptural authority. Read the beginnings and ends of the Epistles. The writers are rebuking the members of the early Church. 

Let us also point out that admonishing a sinner, rebuking a fellow when he is wrong, is a work of mercy. This is exactly what ARM does, and we are commanded to do so: Mt.19:15-18 requires it. So does Luke 17:3, and 1 Tim. 5:20 (Saint Paul again). 2 Tim. 4:2 requires constant correction, as do Titus 1:13 and Titus 2:15. 

Titus 3:10 sets a definite limit to "patience" when dealing with heretics (those with whom ARM principally deals). More correction and rebuke is commanded in 1 Thes. 5:14 and 2 Thes. 3:15. 

Our objectors never seem to find a passage where Jesus says "By the way, be indifferent to what is right and wrong." Nor does He say "It doesn't matter what you do, or what your brother does." And where does He say "Keep silent on my commandments, lest you offend someone who rejects the truth"? 

And that is ARM's point. 

We at ARM do what Jesus (and Saint Paul) demanded that we do. Those who object to us are either ignorant (possible) or intentionally wrong (also possible). What is not possible is that they are correct. 

Why is it that these people don't bother to read the Bible or even listen when Sacred Scripture is read at Mass? We don't know, but perhaps that's one reason why the object to us. 

To deal directly with the concept of damnation: some say we should never refer to it. After all, who are we to say what are the conditions for salvation? Well, the Church specifies certain doctrines (such as the entire Catholic Faith) as necessary for salvation. If one knowingly rejects some necessary element, the one cannot be saved. We didn't decide this, God did. He told the Apostles and they told their successors. Facts like the Assumption and the Real Presence aren't nice optional beliefs: they are required for salvation. 

We are obligated to spread the truth, and some people will reject these truths and endanger their salvation. We can choose to ignore these facts -- endangering the salvation of our own souls -- or we can rebuke, correct, admonish, argue, and otherwise make it clear that these truths are necessary for salvation. That is the choice; it is that simple. Do you now feel that there is any other way to deal with Protestants? 

Let's use an analogy: you are in a car with a drunken driver (let's call him Martin Lucifer). He is speeding along a winding road, headed for a cliff. You can: (1) jump out and let him kill himself -- and possibly kill yourself when you leap; (2) explain to him how he should not have had so much to drink, as he drives off the cliff, killing you both; (3) pray silently so that you don't offend him -- and hope that your last confession was a good one; or (4) wrestle the wheel away from him, stomp on the brakes and try to save his life, even at the risk of offending him. Is there really any choice? (Hint: the answer is "NO".) 

Nearly in tears, our emotionally depleted detractor continues in his resistance to ARM. He does this so that he doesn't have to actually do anything to be a Christian ("Hey, going to Mass once a week is enough! And who are you to tell me what I do? My religion is a personal thing between me and my God!"). 

So now he says "But you don't seem interested in making any conversions. You are only engaged in intellectual conversation and debate. Just how many people have you converted anyway? I don't see any actual invitation to join the Church, just this endless attack, attack, attack...". 

This "business" is not like any other; the matter affects the probability of one's salvation; you get it right or you go to hell. That applies to me as well, and as I have pointed out, sincerity is not enough. You must behave correctly, you must remain in the state of grace, or you go to hell, for eternity. 

If I am wrong, and you do not correct me, know that my. sin is accountable to you! You will pay for my sin. This is exactly why we at ARM spend time and effort correcting, encouraging, rebuking, and guiding. You are your brother's keeper, and I am your brother, therefore keep me. This entire matter -- including this series of articles-- is not merely an intellectual exercise. It is a factor in my salvation -- and in yours. 

Remember this also: If there is no salvation outside the Church (and there is not), and we do not present this message (viz. "convert or die"), then I see no way that we can claim we have love for our fellow men. Saint Paul states that the greatest faith is nothing without love. Think about it... 

To return to our most recent putative objection, which goes something like this: "Oh, you win debates, you 'destroy' objections, you convince people that they are heretics, but so what? How many converts have you made? If you were really interested in evangelization, then you would lead, induce, and gently guide, and not smash, pound, and destroy. Such an approach 'turns off' people. It just doesn't work." 

First, anything which is not sinful and which brings a person closer to Rome is good. And if the "kinder, gentler" approach works, then God bless those who use it. I simply point out that I have seen no evidence that such an approach works.- If it does for you, fine, and you don't need ARM. But how many have converted due to such an approach? I don't know. 

I do, however, know this: every conversion that I have any knowledge of has been one of three types: (1) the "Road to Damascus" type; God punches the truth into them; (2) a gradual self-seeking of truth, with no specific personal guide; (3) "convert or die": the person is confronted with the fact of their damnation outside the Church and panics when he smells hell's smoke. 

I also know this: when I examine those cases where others have been led "gently" to the Faith, I see huge gaps in dogma. One person I know who brought ten people to the Faith refused to answer my questions as to whether the Marian dogma were necessary for salvation. Did she bring someone to a "Church" without the Immaculate Conception? She refused to say. Is that evidence of a Faith which comes from God via Rome? No, it is not. 

Thus far all I have offered is my own expertise. Allow me to now use a "saint story". Saint Dominic is one of the greatest saints: it was from him that the rosary came to us; he founded the order which bears his name; his spiritual sons include Saint Thomas Aquinas and Savonarola. 

Saint Dominic worked for years among the Protestants of his day, the Albigensians. He performed miracles. He preached with a sanctity, knowledge, zeal, and power which few men have ever equaled. He had the support of the entire united Roman Catholic Church -- when she was very powerful -- and of the political authorities of the time. He made one convert. 

Then he withdrew and gave his approval to the "crusade" which followed which literally annihilated the Albigensians; a crusade also approved of by Saint Louis, King of France, one of the greatest men of all times. His method of "conversion" was to suggest that all heretics have swords driven into their stomachs "up to the hilt". These are canonized saints, worthy of emulation, admiration, and study. 

The point here is that, in so much as we can "convert" anyone, I've already exceeded Saint Dominic many times over. And I did it while being opposed by the culture, and without the support of political authorities or Church officials, without miracles or great preaching, or any other advantage he had. 

By now something may have occurred to you: what difference do the numbers make? None. I'm not twice as good as Saint Dominic, I'm far worse, no doubt about it. What is the relationship of numbers to truth? There is none. 

How many people died so that Jesus would be delivered from the Roman and Jewish authorities? None. Only Pope Saint Peter fought. Yet up to one million people died to defend the Jewish temple in A.D. 70 against the Romans. Does that make Judaism a million times more true than Catholicism? What do numbers mean? They measure success, but not truth. 

The number of "converts" means nothing; the number of souls saved means everything. If 20 million people join the Church, go to mass, etc., but deny the Assumption, they go to hell. To paraphrase Our Lord, "What does it profit a man to be a Catholic his whole life but lose his soul?" Catholics do go to hell, and it is just as painful for them as for the heretics. 

As I told Karl Keating on this very subject: When we die -- at the Last Judgment -- we can ask the saved souls to raise their hands and show who was saved by which approach. Then, and only then, can it be decided which approach was "better". 

In the meantime, we will continue to follow the example of Jesus, Who was harsh more often than gentle, demanding more often than guiding, and commanding more often than suggestive. 

Realize that ARM's goal is not to save or to convert others. We cannot save another; Christ does that. We cannot convert another as each man is supreme in his own conscience in choosing to accept Jesus or be damned. What we do is geared toward the salvation of our souls: one necessary element is to evangelize, to bear witness to the truth to others, not for their sake but for one's own. 

So, in a sense, we must plead "guilty, with an explanation", to this charge. If we do not proclaim the Gospel (with harshness, for that is how Saint Paul did it; denouncing heretics, for that is what Saint John did; and rebuking hypocrites, for that is what Our Lord did), we are lost! 

I again request that if any one of you can show how to do that without being harsh, manly, courageous, and unflinching, please do so. The alternative -- the soft, feminine, easy, compromising way -- is probably less difficult, but sounds like the easy road which Jesus says leads away from salvation.

There you are objectors: a challenge. You have no choice but to answer. We await your calls and letters. 

Vincent P. Lewis is founder and president of All Roads Ministry, a lay Catholic evangelist/ apologist organization. This article appeared previously in installments of The ARMament from October 1990 through March 1991.