!!!!
Having spent more than a few years dealing with mental patients, I thought I was pretty well informed about the etiology of psychosis. When I had to deal with a distressed individual whose symptoms were unlike any I had encountered, I asked a distinguished psychiatrist if there is a term for such a personality, and he replied that, based on the information I had given him, the best term was “nutcase.” That was precisely what the Roman governor Porcius Festus thought of St. Paul. The Apostle had been imprisoned by Felix, the predecessor of Festus, for causing social unrest. The problem was that Paul’s alleged crimes had to do with religion, and the cynical Romans did not want to get involved in matters concerning Judaism or anything outside the purview of the Roman legal system. As the Greeks were nothing if not philosophers, so the Romans were above all lawyers, and at their best they had no equals. When the King of Galilee, Julius Marcus Agrippa II came to the coastal city of Caesarea with his sister, Julia Berenice of Cilicia, with whom he was said to have had an incestuous relationship, Festus told them with Roman hauteur about this Paul of Tarsus, who spoke of “a certain Jesus who had died but who Paul claimed was alive” (Acts 25:19).
After Paul had testified before King Agrippa, Festus shouted, “You are mad, Paul; such language is driving you mad!” He assumed that Paul was the sort of fanciful intellectual the sober Romans disdained — living in an unreal ivory tower while the sturdy Romans built real towers and aqueducts and bridges. Paul said, “I am not mad, most excellent Festus. I am speaking words of truth and reason.” Agrippa then said half sardonically, “You will soon persuade me to play the Christian.”
Christians are presently engaged in a confrontation with authorities in our nation that resembles Paul on trial. Some of those authorities assume that anyone who believes in a “certain Jesus who had died but who Paul claimed was alive” must be mad. With admirable unity our bishops are defying the intimidations of our present government, like Paul in Caesarea. This discomforts those vague Catholics who prefer Caesar and his largesse to Christ and His sacrifice.
I recently received a note saying that that the bishops are exaggerating the state of things to mislead the people. I should be glad to disprove that in public debate — for there is no substance to such a view — but the note was anonymous. Paul was not mad, and on the Feast of the Holy Trinity, we celebrate the mystery that will always be a puzzle to those who define reality on their own terms: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Corinthians 13:13).
– Fr. George W. Rutler
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
I think that one of the difficult aspects of being a liberal Catholic is the dishonesty involved. To be a far-left liberal, one must take something old, present it as something new and do so in such a way as to hide all evidence that it is not new. One example comes to mind, but I’m sure other readers can think of a thousand more. Recently during a homily I heard this: “We cannot go back to Trent [meaning the Council of Trent]. We must always be going forward.” The homilist then described what the “going forward” was. Many in the pews who lacked a knowledge of history, philosophy and theology were nodding their heads in agreement. Those with a strong faith, with or without an education were not deceived at all. I saw several little ladies frowning. I found that this homily was somewhat dishonest. The ideas that “progressed” “beyond Trent” actually regressed to Brother Martin Luther:
1) the Mass is no longer a Sacrifice but a celebration
2) Catholics need to go the Bible study classes if they want to really follow Jesus
3) Christianity is good news and only good news
4) Sin is over-emphasized
5) Faith and grace are under-emphasized
6) Christianity is a message of mercy, never judgment
7) the Church is the local parish and its needs
8) The Old Testament is over-emphasized
9) Jesus was anti-law [antinomianism]. ( Being anti-illegal immigration is Phraiseeism. )
These “exciting” “hot” “new” ideas are actually hundreds of years old: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia. They do not go “beyond Trent.” They go back to heresies before Trent. They are not hot. They are cold. They are not exciting. They are frightening. They are not new. They are old.
To present an old idea as a new idea when one knows that it is not new, well . . . that is just dishonest. A great deal of post-Bultmann Scripture scholarship is pure gnosticism.
Sometimes one meets a “Catholic” who self-identifies with the ideas [but not the words] of Nestorianism, Arianism, Originism, Antinomianism, Lutheranism, Calvinism and so on. Modernism was called the synthesis of all heresies. Well, sometimes one meets people who are so-to-speak the synthesis of all heretics. Catholic dogma can’t get in a word edgewise. It is as though they are faithful to every heresy in the book, even heresies that contradict one another.
If one travels and visits different Catholic churches, one is often struck by the homilies. “Oh, this is an Episcopalian church masquerading as a Catholic one. Oh, this is a Lutheran church masquerading as a Catholic church. ” Just because a telephone directory says there are 16 Catholic churches in a city does not tell the whole story.