TEXE MARRS SERVES UP MOONSHINE
WHAT HAPPENED TO PETER'S WIFE?
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
My fan club has not been entirely quiescent. In the January 18 E-Letter I wrote about baptizing infants, and I received a thorough analysis of my argument from Robert Barbour, whom I otherwise do not know. Here is his entire e-mail message:
"Karl Keating is an idiot."
You may read into this what you will, but I, using the most advanced techniques of modern scriptural exegesis, have determined that Mr. Barbour thinks that baptism is a do-nothing sacrament, which makes it no sacrament at all. He and I will have to agree to disagree.
FLY ME TO THE MOON, MR. MARRS
A subscriber who probably endorses infant baptism sent me the latest newsletters from Texe Marrs, who runs an Austin-based ministry called Power of Prophecy. I've mentioned Marrs before in the E-Letter because I find him so consistent. He suspects everyone.
He has produced a special report called "Tower of Infamy--A Rogues' Gallery." It supposedly proves that secret societies are behind what he calls "the Christian Establishment."
The four-page report features 22 photographs of famous figures, each with a caption. His rogues' gallery is an eclectic group that includes Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Henry Luce (founder of "Time" magazine), Ted Turner, Robert Schuller, Mikhail Gorbachev, and many more.
My favorite captions:
While in prison, "Jim Bakker, ordained by the Assembly of God denomination, reportedly went to a Catholic priest to confess his sins." I am not sure what this has to do with secret societies, unless the Catholic Church counts as one.
Tim LaHaye, co-author of the "Left Behind" series, "has been given large sums of money by occultist Reverend Sun Myung Moon. LaHaye has been a featured speaker at Moon's conferences." That's news to me. LaHaye, who used to pastor a church in San Diego, is strongly anti-Catholic. I find it hard to believe he would cooperate with the Unification Church.
In a photograph apparently from the 1950s, Billy Graham is shown shaking hands with Harry Truman. The caption: "Billy Graham shared a secret Masonic handshake with fellow 33rd degree Mason, former president Harry Truman." If the handshake was secret, how did it end up in a publicity photo?
Then there is a photo taken in the grand dining room at the castle at San Simeon. "Super-rich William Randolph Hearst, Catholic Knights of Malta high-up, told his national newspaper chair to 'puff' Billy Graham and make him a household name."
There is some truth to that; the "puff" was in response to Graham's 1949 "crusade" in Los Angeles. But Hearst died in 1951. Graham's rise to fame came some years later, so most of the credit has to go to someone other than Hearst. (By the way, at his web site Marrs calls Hearst a "pagan," not a Catholic.)
Lastly, there is a photo of Fulton Sheen. Actually, it is a cover from an old issue of "TV Guide," which touts "Bishop Sheen's New Book," "How to Watch Football on TV," and "Dorothy Kilgallen: Pro and Con." (I always rather liked her on "What's My Line?" I would have voted "pro.") The caption says that "the late Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was a popular personality on TV in the 50s. A covert member of the Masonic Lodge, his lodge brother, Reverend Robert Schuller, honored Sheen by erecting a statue of him" at the latter's Crystal Cathedral.
If Sheen was a "covert member" of the Masons, how did Marrs know about it? "Covert" means "secret." He certainly wouldn't have been told by Sheen (whom he did not know) or by the Masons (whom he no doubt refuses to speak with).
DID PETER HAVE A WIFE?
Apparently so, since he had a mother-in-law. It is customary that the two go together. Sometimes they even remain together, both staying at a fellow's home. This has been the source of many jokes and sad tales, none of which need be recounted here.
Instead, let's consider Matthew 8:14-15 and Luke 4:38-39. Both accounts say that Peter's mother-in-law was sick with a fever. Jesus rebuked the fever. It left her, and she got up and served him and his companions.
What about Peter's wife? She is nowhere mentioned. I always have found this strange. I can imagine the scene. There is the mother-in-law, lying on a bed and covered with a blanket. At her side, as one would expect, is her dutiful daughter--except that Matthew and Luke make no reference to her daughter.
Leaving her out of the story seems strange. It is not the way a writer would be expected to handle the incident, since a daughter usually is the one most frantic about a mother's condition.
The story is tantalizingly brief, and maybe the Evangelists decided to leave out all but the most salient facts. Or maybe it was just an oversight. Or maybe it was because Peter's wife wasn't there--she already may had died. I think this is the most likely explanation for her non-appearance.
However that may be, there is an ancient tradition, stated by Clement of Alexandria and repeated by Eusebius of Caesarea, that says that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom. We can't tell whether this tradition is well founded. As a writer who has some understanding of how writers compose stories, I nevertheless lean toward my own interpretation, but I give it without guarantee.
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers' new discussion forums at:
http://forums.catholic.com
where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.
|
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up
