Billy Graham has died: Santo Subito!

Billy Graham has died: Santo Subito!

[The Catholic League’s Dr. Bill Donohue has already “canonized” him: “Rev. Billy Graham will be missed. I am happy that he is with our Lord.”] – AQ moderator Tom]

Billy GrahamFamous American “evangelist” Billy Graham has died. Let us pray for him, confident that Our Lord will render perfect justice unto this man who enriched himself by preaching a false gospel; one that encouraged countless souls to die as he did without the aid of the sacraments, outside the one true Church of Christ.

Though I’ve not yet read any statements from members of the hierarchy commenting on Graham’s death, I am certain that many of them will amount to a call to commence his cause for canonization.

This is precisely what happened when another so-called “evangelist,” Robert Schuller of Crystal Cathedral fame, died in 2015.

Readers may recall that Bishop Vann of the Diocese of Orange, where the deceased heretic ran his Christo-business, issued a statement saying:

Schuller showed the light of Christ to people all over the world [via] his inspiration to so many in his preaching of the Word of God … giving of his entire self to the mission of Christ in the world.

Seriously, folks, would anyone really be surprised if a formal cause for the canonization of Billy Graham is actually undertaken?

I wouldn’t.

Billy-Graham-Pope-John-PaulIn fact, it wouldn’t surprise me one iota if the man is eventually raised to the altars; that is, in the same manner as men like Karol Wojtyla.

If we’re honest, we have to admit that according to the new and improved process for canonization – which renders “sainthood” little more than a Lifetime Achievement Award in Service to the Conciliar Revolution – Graham is no less deserving than John Paul II.

Consider the following:

I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ… [God] is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven. – Billy Graham (cf Interview with Robert Schuller, Evangelicalism Divided(2000), pp. 73–74)

This man is the way for the Church-a way that, in a sense, is the basis of all the other ways that the Church must walk – because man – every man without any exception whatever – has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man – with each man without any exception whatever – Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it: Christ, who died and was raised up for all, provides man – each man and every man – with the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme calling.  – John Paul II (Redemptor Hominis 14)

In these quotes, we find summarized in just a few sentences one and the same false gospel; the perversion of the “good news” that both Wojtyla and Graham preached to the nations throughout their “evangelical” careers.

With this in mind, I invite neo-conservative, JPII Catholics, to repeat after me in light of Graham’s passing, Santo Subito!

I would be delighted to see Billy Graham “canonized,” not because I delight in seeing God mocked, but because such would presumably awaken some of those who are pleased to call John Paul II “saint,” opening their eyes to the true extent of the present crisis.

Get AQ Email Updates

9 comments on “Billy Graham has died: Santo Subito!

  1. He was a better example than some of the saints they have or will canonize. He comes from the era that they respected the Natural Law and even though his theology was wrong ,he was hardly an enemy of the Truth

  2. Louie has a point. Since conciliarists can be anything they feel like or can think up (as long as they keep it free of anything “religious” before Vatican II), canonizing heretics (or commie-symps like J23) is just another new, fun way for everybody to celebrate the new and improved “fullness of truth” the new, fun hierarchy has pretty much emptied itself of in the last five years. ☺
    Next up, Vatican stamp collectors will be snapping up that touching portrayal of Mao Tse Tung’s founding of the Official People’s Catholic Church in 1956. The pre-production artist’s rendering depicts Mao beaming from his bedroom window as a procession, on its way to the Yu Dung Cathedral & Armory passes beneath, bearing banners of Marx wearing a halo and Francis handing out cans of La Choy chow mein to smiling Red Chinese Army infantryman in the courtyard of the Forbidden City.
    Order yours now! First day of issue expected to be July 1.

  3. One must distinguish a person who does not understand all the facts from a person who has been taught Catholicism and rejected it. Serious sin requires 3 conditions; that you know what you are doing is error is a requirement. We can give Charity the benefit of the doubt and say that we have nothing to prove he understood his error.
    God does not judge us by what we know, but by what we should have known better, and did not follow through. It reminds me of a Catechism class given by a religious when I was very young. “Thou shalt not commit kill” means it is a sin to kill. But if someone enters your house in the middle of a dark night, and its your brother that you shoot, thinking it’s a burglar, it is not a sin, because you believed it to be in self defense.
    To say that Billy Graham enticed Catholics, it was for him, a subjective misunderstanding of the facts, not a heresy, since he was not born into the True Faith. And God may make exceptions. Like the Parable of the Servants given responsibility to hold a certain amount of Talons. A Catholic has the largest, and produces [hopefully] the most; the Protestant has the lesser middle amount of grace, and produces [hopefully] something more- maybe ends by converting to Catholicism. The third..well.. has the least Talons.. maybe a Jew? Well, you know the story. But it leads me to think the many hidden graces granted, But also, the many hidden investments produced.

  4. May he rest in peace.
    However, like most evangelical Protestant leaders, Billy Graham failed to condemn artificial contraception during the onset of the sexual revolution. It was a celibate Catholic priest, Pope Paul VI, who despite his own flaws was practically the solitary major religious leader who publicly and definitively reaffirmed the condemnation artificial contraception.

  5. We may never know for sure…

    Anthony, I read recently that Montini gave his final draft to Cd. Ottaviani for review. “O” was charged with defending doctrine, of course.
    What “O” found was that the pope had okayed contraception and the Cardinal had to rewrite every last offending paragraph before he could allow the encyclical to be published.
    Im not sure that any of that happened but with Montini’s track record, it “could” have occurred. If it were true, then why did “O” let HV’s dangerous assertion that “mutual consolation” between spouses was equally primary with procreation?
    On the allegation, I’ll give P6 the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, I think the story, in the entire context of P6’s reign, merits serious investigation since the public commission he allowed to go on and on publicly sided in favor of contraception and the pope did not, far as I know, inhibit such polemics.

  6. Hello gpm,
    The following is a very good analysis by John Galvin of the deficient approach of Humanae Vitae to the problem of artificial birth control and the regulation of births.
    (I hope this link is permissible.)
    The author makes the case that HV arrives at the correct conclusion, but in the process jettisons the traditional Catholic approach to marital morality, which was formerly based solidly on natural law.
    If I recall correctly, Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr. John Ford, S.J. and Germain Grisez all had key roles in helping the Pope to hold the line against artificial contraception.

    • “Humanae Vitae” Heroic, Deficient – or Both?
      Janet Smith Comments [on John Galvin’s Article]
      John Galvin argues that if Humanae Vitae were a better document (not “fatally flawed” and more like Casti Connubii) so many Catholics would not be contracepting. Galvin thinks virtually no one has been or could be persuaded by the arguments of Humanae Vitae or its advocates. I contest both claims.
      Humanae Vitae certainly is not perfect (though I think it quite excellent in many respects) and Galvin ably establishes that Casti Connubii has strengths that Humanae Vitae does not. But I hardly find persuasive the contention that the inadequacies in Humanae Vitae are responsible for the fact that Catholics contracept at the same rate as the rest of society. Indeed, according to Galvin’s principles (excellent arguments persuade), if Casti Connubii were so excellent Humanae Vitae (or a better document) shouldn’t have been necessary; Catholics should already have been persuaded. Moreover, Casti Connubii is still in print; if it is so persuasive why isn’t it succeeding even now? From Galvin’s principles, it seems the proper conclusion is that both documents are terribly flawed for neither has succeeded.
      Another conclusion could be drawn: neither encyclical has succeeded, because neither has been taught nor are people prepared to receive their teachings. Since the Church’s teaching on contraception remains largely untaught it is impossible to determine if it is how it is being taught that is the problem. Until Catholics are taught the Church’s teaching we won’t know what kind of approach is persuasive. (I will speak about my own experiences below.)
      Perhaps Mr. Galvin and I have different expectations of an encyclical: he wants it to be persuasive and finds it flawed if it does not persuade. I think good arguments often fail to persuade because of confusion and recalcitrance on the part of the audience. Moreover, I have relatively low standards (maybe too low) for a magisterial document: I am quite content with a reaffirmation of the Truth. Church teaching surely deserves at least three things: 1) good philosophical and theological support and 2) persuasive presentation and 3) a respectful hearing. It would be splendid if magisterial documents could provide both 1 and 2 and could receive 3, but sometimes they don’t and sometimes perhaps because of various cultural and ecclesiastical realities. When such is the case, it is up to the theologians and presenters of the teaching to supply what is missing. Galvin’s piece is helpful for highlighting elements not so well-treated in Humanae Vitae; those who would defend the Church’s teaching might do well to incorporate some of those elements into their teaching.
      And, there are, in fact, different kinds of philosophical and theological arguments that can be advanced for the same position. It is not up to an encyclical to try to present all the various philosophical and theological arguments that are available nor to find arguments that would be persuasive to every reader. The most challenging argument that Galvin makes is that Humanae Vitae does not rely sufficiently upon natural law arguments, tradition, or scripture and that its defenders have relied too much on reciting the terrible consequences of a contraceptive life-style and on the personalist arguments of the present Holy Father. (I note that Galvin himself could not resist using a remarkable number of consequentialist arguments in his own piece – both against contraception and Humanae Vitae!). I, too, have bemoaned the Church’s abandonment of natural law in many of its documents but I have also found Pope John Paul II’s arguments illuminating and persuasive and references to consequences open the eyes of many. My approaches to defending the Church’s teaching on contraception have been manifold; most of my articles are available on my website for those interested in seeing various kinds of defense that can be made ( This does not mean that there might not be better arguments to be made!
      We do need to think about the difference between a good philosophical/theological argument and a good rhetorical argument. To explain the distinction to my students in bioethics I have them consider the difference between trying to persuade a young woman outside of an abortion clinic that she should not have an abortion, writing an editorial for a newspaper, and writing a scholarly analysis of abortion. Reference to substance and accident, actuality and potentiality, Church authority, and Scripture are unlikely to be the most persuasive approaches in front of a clinic or in an editorial though they may be the very best ways of proving philosophically and theologically that abortion is killing. But what may convince a young women contemplating an abortion is an offer of baby clothes, or a reference to the possibility that she will compromise her own future fertility or mental health. What works in an editorial may be very time and context sensitive. Reference to God and sin will be persuasive to some and a complete turn-off to others. Arguments noting the terrible consequences generally resulting from an evil work with some and fail with others. Finding effective rhetoric is a demanding enterprise.
      It is a truly daunting task to attempt to persuade Catholics who have no knowledge of natural law, little knowledge of scripture, no knowledge of the tradition and a negative attitude towards Church authority, of any Church teaching. Even more so when these Catholics live in a culture that has a view of sexuality radically opposed to the Catholic understanding. The arguments that are philosophically and theologically the strongest often fail persuasively since the audience frequently seriously misinterprets what is being said. Humanae Vitae was trying to meet the needs of the time. From his arguments, it is possible to think that Galvin believes Pope Paul VI would have done better to have reissued Casti Connubii. I suspect it would not have met a better fate.
      Galvin’s assessment conflicts with the feedback that I get from my work which is a blend of the old and the new, of natural law arguments, of reference to scripture, of references to the terrible consequences of contraception, of personalism and reference to John Paul II’s theology of the body. I have reason to believe my tape has changed the minds of thousands — perhaps more — and has even been instrumental in conversions and vocations. Really, I don’t take a lot of credit for that; I honestly don’t think the reasons against contraception are that hard to understand. Christ West gives a markedly different defense from mine – his draws entirely on Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body; I have heard young men say that he has completely changed their thinking about sexuality and, thus, their lives. Any clear and fair presentation of the Truth can be powerful for those who are open to it.
      Much of the opposition to the Church’s teaching on contraception comes from those who have a problem with an authoritative Church, those who have been educated by dissenters, or those who are morally corrupt. Yet, again, I think a major problem is that few Catholics or others have ever heard ANY explanation of the Church’s condemnation against contraception, whether one based on Humanae Vitae or Casti Connubii.

  7. Thank you, Anthony. Very kind of you to research this. TIA does some excellent work despite some rifts in the past with our Fearless Leader, Serv.
    As one friend put it, infighting is part of every Trad group’s genetic code. He may have a point. Anyway, thanks again.

  8. Smith, a neo-Kathlyk icon, can always be depended upon to push JPIIism and not significantly offend the fans of the truly odious Christopher West.
    ’nuff sed. Pfffffftttttt!

Leave a Reply