Hagee To Catholics: I’m Sorry
John Hagee, whose comments about the Catholic Church did not sit well with many Catholics and, specifically, the Catholic League, issued a letter of apology, declaring:
“Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful,” Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. “After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism.”
The letter was sent to Catholic League president Bill Donahue, who previously released a list of grievances called “Veteran Bigot.” Hagee addresses some of his harsh remarks, saying,
“I better understand that reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the ‘apostate church’ and the ‘great whore’ described in the book of Revelation” – both terms Hagee has employed – “is a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary,” he wrote.
Donahue issued this statement:
“The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns,” Donohue wrote.
Will the next stop on the Apology Express be the city of New Orleans or the gay community?
Hm… this could actually do McCain some good, though. Obama might do well to try and tease an apology out of Rev. Wright.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Good for Hagee. Perhaps he’s not quite the simple-minded buffoon he appeared to be.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Wright will never apologize because he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong.
As far as Hagee goes, it shows his character that he apologized. Calling the Catholic Church names like “the great whore” is a bit too far. I disagreed with Bill Donohue over this issue but I appreciate that he accepted Hagee’s apology.
What is WRONG with having theological differences, though? Are we all supposed to join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, as most secular progressives (to use O’Reilly’s term) want us to do? Catholics probably dislike Protestant doctrine…should that bother me as a Protestant? We all have different beliefs! We don’t have to insult one another but for someone to declare or imply that “all beliefs are valid” or “all paths lead to God” is a narrow-minded view in and of itself.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
The idea of God is the product of human weakness and the Bible is “pretty childish.”
Albert Einstein, 1954.
Hagee (a divorced man married to his second wife) according to the Pope is a sinner. Warren Jeffs (wackjob Mormon) also considers Hagee a sinner but only because he’s not married to two underage women at the same time.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Mouse~ lol! Well, this situation certainly contributes to your theory that organized religion breeds intolerance. (I think it was you who said that, but it might have been Sky.) Shamefully, we’ve all seen examples of that today’s events and in world history.
Here’s the thing- there’s no way to know how sincere this ‘apology’ is. Anything can be made to sound sincere. I’ve read one of Hagee’s books dealing with End Times prophecy. So, if the Catholic Church is no longer the ‘great whore’ from Revelations, then who/what is? How can he go back on decades of the theology interpretation he has preached?
In his letter he says that “In my writings, I have never stated that the great whore is the Catholic Church.” In the video that Alan links to above, it sure as hell looks and sounds to me like he indicates the great whore is the apostate (Catholic) church.
here’s a link to Hagee’s website and the vid of him giving the apology:
http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=47BEB58F9EF24337835DB74C0E0760D9&SiteID=4AC79C9B25B24DF3AF21C42311BE3921
May 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
A lot of protestants view the Roman Catholic church as the possible group from which the “antichrist” arises. Could this be residual animosity from the reformation? Maybe.
I’m thinking that it’s due to some of the beliefs of the church which lack any biblical support and puts them at odds with protestants. That combined with the worldwide influence and “power” the church holds.
Yet,in terms of an event predetermined by an infinite being I find it extremly difficult to see finite beings figuring it out.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Well, it took offensive remarks about a church to get enough of a backlash for him to sort-of apologize. I wouldn’t bet on other apologies, or even an explaination that they might have been rhetorical device instead of the usual condemnation.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
So, what this proves more than anything is that conservatives can admit when we’re wrong and liberals can admit…when conservatives are wrong, too. Big shock that.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
He didn’t admit he was wrong. He said he was sorry that Catholics took what he said as offensive. Like they are they are ones who twisted it into something hurtful.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Hagee has apologized. Falwell apologized too.
Bullshit.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:02 am
I didn’t say he didn’t apologize. I was pointing out all he did was offer a “clarification”.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:57 am
or did you mean you suspect his sincerity? (sorry, I sometimes have trouble reading things.)
May 14th, 2008 at 5:00 am
lol Zack. It’s ok. My comment wasn’t in response to what you had just written. I meant that I think it’s bullshit that Hagee is really sorry. I don’t believe him for a single second. Just like when Falwell apologized for his comments.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
“Wright will never apologize because he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong.”
He hasn’t done anything wrong. The reich, as always, is taking what he said out of context. Maybe you should listen to his speech some time, instead of listening to Hannity’s interpretation of it.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
He’s actually right to condemn the antisemitism in the catholic and protestant churches. His perceived anticatholicism (And I’m catholic, though admittedly not practicing and have issues with the theology) is actually not what bothered me as much as his “get a job or starve” and “New Orleans got what it deserved” comments.
Regardless, I accept his apology and recognize his good work. Maybe I was too quick to judge the man. After all, I don’t know anything about him except a few soundbites,
May 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I’ll add that Rod Parsley has always bothered me much more than Hagee
May 14th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Well Mikey,
Here’s a great opportunity for you to give us a class on “The Crusades”. Why not, and clear up this whole mess for us OK? Then we may all come to a better understanding of Mr. Hagees remarks. Consult with Craig in Bull Island who believes “faith” is philosophy.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I’ve read Hagee and Parsley… I don’t know that he’s anti-Catholic, as much as he’s speaking to what he thinks Revelation says. They’re just fundamentalists, fervently preaching their interpretation of the Bible. Hagee’s interpretation of Revelation is not the same as what other Christians believe. For instance, there are 3 different primary theories on the End Times (eschatology)- pretribulation, midtribulation, and posttribulation. (You can google for lots and lots of info on those if you wanted.) Hagee and Parsley have their particular interpretations and stick with it, so I really don’t understand how Hagee can now say that the Catholic church is not the ‘great whore’. And he only apologized b/c of the controversy. Which is often the case in situations like this.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Do you know the definition of theory is Cherylcarrol? Of course you don’t.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I bet you’ve read your horoscope, maybe used a wiji board, maybe visited a palm reader or phsychic, believe in luck, or ghosts, or believe something regarding “Darwin” as truth, because you sure don’t know what a theory is.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
You and Mike have little knowledge of Catholicism too.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am
You’ve read Hagee, and Parsley, and understood nothing. I’m not surprised.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Ken,
I’m only going to try this one time. nowhere did I state that faith was philosophy. I made one statement that you did not understand. When I used the word “philosophy” it could have easily been replaced with religion or ideology.
Now,I understand that faith itself isn’t philosophy,yet the means that are used to apply faith,such as reason does have a philisophical application. As well,religion most certainly deals with metaphiscs.
In the New Testament the apostle Paul says “to always be prepared to give an account for the hope that is within you.” He goes on to say that it should be done in a graceful way and with love.
If you are in a discussion with a “nonbeliver” it is going to be quite difficult to reason with them useing the Bible as your only resource,since they most likely don’t recognize it as anything other than a book. This is where reason (philosophy) enters the picture.
I’m going to make an assumption that you believe yourself to be a follower of the Christian religion. That being the case you do it a great disservice by name calling and,in the case with Michael,suggesting a physical confrontation. In addition to that,when you resort to that form of dialouge you invalidate yourself as a person that has anything logical to contribute.
As for me,I have a solid understanding of protesantism as well as catholisism. My beliefs run along the same lines as those espoused by John Calvin,although I don’t cosider myself a hyper-Calvanist.
I feel the you can give a better defense of Christian beliefs(philosophies)when you put those beliefs into practice with your conversations.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Paul says “to always be prepared to give an account for the hope that is within you.”
That is one of my absolutely favorite passages!
I think that the above comment was well-stated. Anyone can read a Bible and take a different interpretation from it, which is why there are THOUSANDS of Christian denominations. THOUSANDS!
In a similar vein, anyone can read the Constitution and various other American documents and interpret them differently. We all read those documents and develop our own theories. Where politics is concerned, how do we determine which interpretation is the right one? I think that in most cases, we cannot. So thankfully we have a democratic system that allows us to vote (directly or indirectly) to influence policy (again, directly or indirectly). Think about it- just b/c a theory is held by the majority of people doesn’t mean that it’s the right one.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
And what makes you such an expert in Catholicism Ken? You certainly know nothing about how to have a civil debate
May 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hagee should not have apologized because he was telling the truth. I am an ex-catholic and know what they are about. I am tired of people of faith who back down to the RCC because of the status the so-called “Church” has in this world. They are NOT Christians and the pope is NOT a man of God. Compare the Bible to catholic doctrine and you will see what I mean. Moreover, for those of you who’ll say I’m hating on the catholics, I only hate the system, not the people in it. Sometimes the truth is a little hard to take.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Vincent,you’re correct. The RCC is nothing more than a cult by definition. Many of it’s doctrines have no scriptural support and in most cases are in direct opposition to it.The emphasis it places on individuals past and present other than Jesus are part of it.
That is not to cast any doubt on the sincerity,or “goodness” of it’s practioners.
Neither am I stating that catholics aren’t “saved.”
May 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
First Craig, Mikey made the tough guy accusation. He’s the one who brought up the Crusades as an obvious reference of all Christians. Philosophy is nothing more than a spin on words, and you never use anything but the truth (scripture) when one is ministering to another. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and you don’t have a solid knowledge of catholicism. And, who the heck is John Calvin anyway? He’s not mentioned in any scripture I’ve read. Go ahead, root through scripture and use it out of it’s intended context to make a point. That’s solid alright.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
ken,I refer you to my post in another thread. I tried to engage you in a sensible manner but your cognitive impairments prevent that from happening.
There’s no futher reason to ackowledge any of your posts.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I’ll join Craig in the “ignore Ken” movement.
I too have tried to engage him in sensible and polite discussions, but instead he chooses to demean, insult, and attack me rather than my position. While I don’t often agree with Craig, I have no problem with him personally and have enjoyed the debates I’ve had with him. The same can not be said for Ken.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Do I hear an Amen!? LOL
May 15th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Amen again! I spend a lot of time online, my laptop is one of my best friends! I work online, have an online crafts business, and another website that I’m supposed to be building but keep putting off… Sometimes it’s not worth the trouble. I like to make my point and then go on about my business.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
How many headaches do you get a day? :)
May 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Dude, you don’t even want to know! :-)
May 15th, 2008 at 10:10 pm