What is Purgatory?

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Often, in forumland, I have encountered many fictional caricatures of what the Church teaches purgatory to actually be. With an emphasis on Scripture, let's review this doctrine.

PURGATORY DEFINED

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. (CCC#1030)

I think anyone who chooses to defend or discredit purgatory must remain focused on this core definition.

Perhaps the most common accusation I hear against purgatory is something like: "Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross." The logic is if man has to undergo some purification even after he has been joined to Christ's perfect sacrifice, then it means we are "adding" to Christ, calling him insufficient. But as we will see, there is no such thing "adding" to Christ in the teaching of purgatory. And as we shall see, the doctrine of purgatory is most sound theology.

DOES THE IDEA OF PURGATORY DENY THE SUFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S WORK?

I think the following Scriptural verses express well the purpose of Christ's sacrifice:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God. (1 Pet. 3:18)

Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. (Tit. 2:13b-14)

Notice that nowhere in these or any Scriptures is a statement that a true Christian will permanently be free of sinful faults or tendencies once he becomes a Christian. Nor is there a Biblical text asserting that a Christian will not suffer from consequences of sin. Verses like the former above that refer to Christ dying for "sins" are distinct from a statement saying Christ erases all consequences of sin or that the purifying power of his death is applied once to a soul, never requiring further sanctification (i.e. holiness).

You will often hear Catholic teaching refer to "temporal" consequences or punishments due to sin. A person should take a moment to reflect on the term "temporal" which is distinct from "eternal." The evangelist John makes such a distinction between what is also called a venial or mortal (sin leading to death) in his epistle: 1 John 5:16-17. Scripture contains a number of examples distinguishing various degrees of sin. Any temporal consequence of sin suffered by a repentant sinner is not forever. Thus, temporal consequences of sin neither conflict with the sufficiency of Christ's work to bring us eternal life.

DO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY GOD'S CHILDREN NEED FURTHER SANCTIFICATION?

Another passage referencing the need even for those who belong to God to incur purification is in Hebrews:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. ... he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. ... make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for...the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (Heb. 12:7-14)

In this passage are very noteworthy statements that douse the accusation that the need for purification even after becoming a Christian should be an affront to Christ's sacrifice.

1. Those who are already God's "sons" (cf. eg. Gal. 3:26) still endure discipline under God.
2. One of the purposes for this is to conform His children to "His holiness."
3. Parts of God's children remain "lame" in need of "healing."
4. And the holiness to which this leads is that which makes God's children fit to "see the Lord."

A few verses later, the text in Hebrews fortifies this teaching by telling God's children that those who come to their final inheritance have to come to a place dwelt by "the spirits of just men made perfect." (Heb. 12:23)

Purgatory in no way denies that Christ's redemptive work is the means by which all mankind must follow in order to attain heaven. Purgatory, like Tit. 2:14 above, reflects the need for the soul to be purified. And this need can remain even after one becomes a Christian but prior to full union with God in heaven.

As well, in Catholic theology purgation takes place by no other power than Christ. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his book Eschatology in the section on purgatory, in the context of 1 Cor. 3:10-15 (quoted at top):

What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy. (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 231)

This ties in well with Hebrews 12 above. The point is, if God should effect purification even after a person becomes His adopted child, it in no way affronts the power of the Crucufixion but rather illuminates its merciful scope.

An example from Romans
Another example can be seen in Paul's letter to the Romans:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh -- for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (Rom. 8:11-13)

Dr. Scott Hahn expounds thusly on the passage:

[L]ook at this, "we are debtors," we still have a debt to pay; not because Christ hasn't paid it but because Christ has paid it once and for all, and through the Holy Spirit in His mystical body, He applies that. (Hahn, Purgatory: Holy Fire from Answering Common Objections St. Joseph Communications.)

Earlier in his discourse, Hahn foreshadowed the significance of Romans 8 by saying:

...Christ has accomplished our redemption. It's over and done with. He has finished it. But then He sends the Holy Spirit to apply it, and the application of redemption is just as essential. 

St. John Chrysostom speaks similarly regarding the power of the Spirit, distinct from our power, to cleans us from sin in our suffering:

What sort of deeds then does he mean us to mortify? Those which tend toward wickedness, those which go after vice, which there is no other way of mortifying save through the Spirit. For by killing yourself you may put an end to the others. And this you have no right to do. But to these (you can put an end) by the Spirit only. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 14 on Romans, ca 390 A.D.)

In the letter to the Romans, Paul follows the idea that we in the Spirit are still "debtors" with the following:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom. 8:14-17)

So essentially, when we suffer such that we "put to death the deeds of the body" (i.e. sins), it is the Spirit effecting Christ's finished atoning work to us, purifying us from all stain of sin.

This is the essence of Peter's and James' teaching that love "covers a multitude of sins." (1 Pet. 4:8, cf. Jam. 5:20) Whether it be debt or uncleanliness, the essence of the figure is the same. All aspects of the negative must be removed in order to make that soul pure for heaven.

HOW PURE MUST ONE BE TO ENTER HEAVEN?

If one examines the text of Matthew chapter 5, one sees that Christ follows His discourse on the beatitudes by reiterating the commandments as well as other exhortations such as "love your enemy." The chapter is concluded with: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mat. 5:48)

As previously cited, the book of Hebrews (12:23) likewise refers to souls "made perfect" and "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." There is a certain "degree" of holiness, if you will, necessary to see the Lord. Those in Hebrews 12 who were already God's children, still endured His discipline so that they might achieve that holiness.

If we consider statements referring to heaven itself, we see that "nothing unclean shall enter it" (Rev. 21:27). And if we consider the prayer taught by Christ himself, we know he exhorts us to pray that God's "will be done on earth as it is in heaven." (Mat. 6:10) And we have already established that perfection, purity, and holiness are prerequisites to enter heaven.

But isn't Christ's righteousness imputed to the Christian so God doesn't see any blemishes or consequences of sin anyway?

The Hebrews 12 passage is one example that belies this teaching. If God only sees the holiness of Christ in His children, He would not chastise them for the sake of their holiness, because there is nothing imperfect about Christ's holiness.

In Catholic teaching, "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man." (CCC#1989, Council of Trent 6.7a)

The Church does not consider the common "forensic-only" idea of justification a satisfactory doctrine. For example, 19th century theologian Robert Shaw, expositing on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 stated:

Justification, according to the use of the word in Scripture, must be understood forensically. ... [J]ustification does not lie in infusing righteousness into a person, but in declaring him to be righteous on legal grounds; and, like the sentence of a judge, it is completed at once. (Shaw, Exposition of the WCF, p. 147)

Without knowing if Shaw was referring to a particular form of the root word "just" in Scripture, it is still not difficult to find many forms of the term that do not refer to a forensic declaration alone. For example, Mat. 12:37 states: "by your words you will be justified." The Greek word dikaiwyhsh is the verb there in the future tense translated "will be justified." Here, justification is contingent upon action by the individual, not merely a legal declaration apart from actual righteousness (done by the person with grace, of course). As an adjective, the Greek word dikaioi appears twice in the parable of the sheep and goats (Mat. 25:37, 46) in reference to the just persons who did indeed exhibit holiness.

As well, throughout the New Testament we are shown Christ performing a healing juxtaposed with the forgiveness of sins. Take for instance the healing of the paralytic:

And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question thus in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Rise, take up your pallet and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic -- "I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home." And he rose. (Mark 2:4-12)

Therefore, we see how a merely forensic acquittal does not satisfy the context of true healing transpiring in the text. Was the paralytic merely "declared" healed while his physical imperfection remained? No, the paralytic was truly healed. Jesus shows the audience he did this for the purpose of showing them that the man's sins had been healed though they could not sensibly perceive so. If we say Christ actually healed the man's physical affliction, but merely declared healed the man's spiritual afflictions, then we do violence to Christ's use of the miracle to show us the unseen.

ARE THERE TEMPORAL CONSEQUENCES TO SIN EVEN AFTER THE GUILT IS FORGIVEN?

One consequence to sin is due to the original sin inherent in all human beings---everyone must undergo temporal death (e.g. Rom. 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:21). Even though death entered the world through Adam, a Christian is not spared this consequence of man's fallen nature simply by becoming Christian.

Another example is when Jesus tells us that sin results in a "slavery" to the sin. (John 8:34) This is another consequence of a sin even if one has repented of the sin. If a lifelong drug addict who treated drugs as a "god" above God offers true repentance, his previous sins against the first commandment will no longer prevent him from entering heaven. The eternal consequences of the sin are taken away. Yet, is such a man always immediately cured of his attachment to the drug? No, this consequence of the sin may remain with him for the rest of his life. He may even take the drugs again and again due to the "slavery" that he fostered from a life of sin. To be freed from the temporal consequences, he should pray for healing, perhaps seek help, and practice discipline.

Another example of temporal consequences after forgiveness is in the Old Testament.

David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die." (2 Sam. 12:13-14)

In this passage, David repents of his killing of Uriah and affair with Bathsheba. God puts away David's sin in the sense that David shall not die an eternal death in hell (cf. 1 King. 2:1-10, Rev. 20:14). Yet David is afflicted with temporal consequences. He must live the rest of his earthly years suffering from the death of his son.

In the New Testament, we see a related figure depicted in the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Zacchaeus expresses his faith in Jesus by including the promise: "if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold." (v.8) Jesus responds by rejoicing that "salvation has come" to Zacchaeus' house. Zacchaeus, of course, demonstrates not just an outward repentance for violating another. He seeks due restitution for the violation.

Another short parable appears in various forms regarding imprisonment without release until a debt is paid (Mat. 5:23-26, Luke 12:57-59). A few verses later we see Matthew write: "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mat. 5:48) And immediately after that is the story of when Christ teaches the "Our Father" prayer to the disciples. He says to pray: "forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." (Mat. 6:12) In the Greek, the word translated for debt is ofeilhmata. This word refers to something "owed" or "due." 

SANCTIFICATION ON THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN

From the earliest times of the Old Testament, sin was often presented in a financial light. It became a debt one must pay. In order to make proper restitution for the sin, the sinner was called to atone in various ways, balancing the ledger so to speak, canceling a debt with a credit. Other figures in the OT included sin as a weight that required lifting or as a blemish that needed washing. In one of my theology classes, I did a paper on Proverbs 16:6, pertinent to this subject.

By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD a man avoids evil. (Proverbs 16:6 (15:27a in LXX))

If we delve into the Greek of this passage, the phrase "loyalty and faithfulness" finds a variety of translations in different Bibles. Often it refers to love and faith. The Greek Septuagint renders the phrase: eleēmosunais kai pistesin. The latter term there, rooted by pistis, is recognizable as the Biblical term for faith. The root of eleēmosunais has 11 occurrences in the New Testament, usually translated as “alms.” Pope John Paul II agrees the term refers to "almsgiving."

The root of the term for "atoned" there is kippēr. Dr. Gary Anderson, in his book Sin: A History, defines this as "to wipe away sin" or in other forms of the verb, "to wash away sin." (Anderson, Sin, p. 16) In fact, the early Church, in both the west and east, interpreted the term in exactly that way. Both St. Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.) and St. John Chrysostom (ca. 390 A.D.) cross-reference Proverbs 16:6 with the "washing" episode of Luke 11:37-41.

While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. (Luke 11:37-41)

In this passage, Christ identifies almsgiving as a means by which one can “cleanse” that which is “inside.” The Pharisees were concerned about cleaning the physical body, but Christ emphasized cleaning the spiritual body. Almsgiving accomplished the washing of the spiritual body "within."

Proverbs elsewhere refers to the impurity and uncleanliness of earthly natives due to sin: "Who can say, "I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin?" (Prov. 20:9) And we already established that such impurity is incompatible with heavenly union with God.


ARE GOOD WORKS SUCH AS ALMSGIVING IN COMPETITION WITH CHRIST'S WORK?

One might ask, if the transformation in purgatory is an "encounter with the Lord," as Cardinal Ratzinger stated, then how can we purge our sins with alms while still on earth? Isn't that something "in addition" to God who alone sanctifies? How can the Biblical text refer to the cleansing power of almsgiving in both the Old and New Testaments!

First, we must remember, that's what texts like Prov. 16:6 or Luke 11:41 say. Second, we must not consider our works done by the power of grace as something alien to, nor in competition with, Christ. Catholic teaching states the following:

In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end" and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. (CCC#1821)

A Scriptural passage, among other related ones, comes to mind in light of this teaching. First, is the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28). In the parable, the three servants are given gifts by the master. Two servants are fruitful with their gifts. One buries his gift and is sent where there is grinding of teeth, the figure of hell. The two good servants were only able to accomplish anything of value because of the master's gift. Grace is also a gift of God. Cardinal Charles Journet writes:

God is bound to give grace to all, but he is not bound to give it equally. He gives his servants one, two or five talents, to each according to his capacity (Mt. xxv. 15). (Journet, The Meaning of Grace, III.10.g, 1957) 

If a soul should accomplish something of value, such as giving alms as Christ taught in Luke 11, the soul is not detached from Christ when accomplishing the alms. This is also the figure of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1-10). The branches can bear fruit only if they are attached to the vine. Branches in a vine bear fruit only because they receive the nutrients from the vine. (cf. Council of Trent, 6.16) To deny the value of a Christian's work is to actually deny the power of the source himself!

Peter teaches similarly:

As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace. (1 Peter 4:10)

Just as in the above interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, grace is a gift to be utilized (no matter how "much" one receives). Here, Peter exhorts us to utilize grace for "one another." This fits well with Luke 11 when Christ tells us to give alms. This action is done under the power of grace and is nothing "in addition" to the work of Christ. In the words of St. Augustine:

"[O]nly grace works every one of our good merits in us, and God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing other than His own gifts." (Augustine, Epistles 194:5:19)

The Council of Trent uses a similar paraphrase:

God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. (Council of Trent, 6.16)

Paul teaches that we are members of one body which is Christ himself (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24). The love we exhibit in that body is an extension of Christ's love, his very Passion:

If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Rom. 8:17)

...that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. (Phil. 3:10)

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. (1 Pet. 4:12-13)

GOLD & SILVER: HOW DOES PURGATORY FIT IN WITH SANCTIFICATION?

In the previous verse from Peter, I also bolded the phrase "fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you." Fire is frequently used in Scripture to reference purification, often in the context of precious metals. Later in that same letter, Peter writes:

In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 1:6-7)

Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich... (Rev. 3:18) 

This idea of being "tested (or refined/tried) by fire" is a reference to the ancient process of smelting. In smelting, a precious metal is exposed to fire. The metal is freed from various impurities that burn at different temperatures. The result is pure gold or silver without bits of valueless debris attached to it. The Old Testament references this imagery as well:

The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. (Psalm 12:6)

Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. (Isaiah 48:10)

In the whole land, says the LORD, two thirds shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left alive. And I will put this third into the fire, and refine them as one refines silver, and test them as gold is tested. (Zech. 13:8-9)

Two of the passages from which St. Augustine derived an understanding of purgatory also involved fire and/or gold and silver. He writes:

From these words it more evidently appears that some shall in the last judgment suffer some kind of purgatorial punishments; for what else can be understood by the word, Who shall abide the day of His entrance, or who shall be able to look upon Him? For He enters as a moulder's fire, and as the herb of fullers: and He shall sit fusing and purifying as if over gold and silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and pour them out like gold and silver? (Mal. 3:2-3) Similarly Isaiah says, The Lord shall wash the filthiness of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse away the blood from their midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning. (Is. 4:4) (Augustine, City of God, 20.28, ca 415 A.D.) 

Numerous other texts use the same imagery. Keep this idea in mind: Frequently, Scripture communicates purification through the image of fire and gold or silver.

One of the most common passages pointing to the idea of Purgatory is the one quoted in the opening of this article:

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Notice the imagery of smelting in the passage. There are six materials that fall into two categories. Gold, silver, and precious stones will survive higher temperatures. Wood, hay, and straw will burn up quickly. The result will be pure gold and silver. At the end of the passage, the figure is equated with what happens to the individual––the worthy soul is "saved" after passing through the fire applied on "the Day."

St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly associates this passage with Purgatory.

[H]e shows the means by which it will be disclosed, namely, by fire; hence he continues: because it shall be revealed with fire, namely, the day of the Lord: for the day of judgment will be revealed in the fire which will precede the face of the judge, burning the face of the world, enveloping the wicked and cleansing the just. Ps 96 (v. 3) says of this: “Fire goes before him, and burns up his adversaries round about.” But the day of the Lord which occurs at death will be revealed in the fire of purgatory, by which the elect will be cleansed, if any require cleansing: Job (23:10) can be interpreted as referring to this fire: “When he has tried me, I shall come forth as god.” (Aquinas, Commentary on Corinthians, 164)

His 13th century work follows a long list of Early Church Fathers who also reference this passage to purgatory after temporal death or speak of purifying fire in general. For example:

In his wisdom God employed contradictory means, that is, he used irrational nature as clothing. The garment of skin has all the properties belonging to an irrational nature: pleasure, anger, gluttony, greed, and similar tendencies which allow man to choose between virtue and evil. Man lives by his free will. If he concludes that his nature is irrational and opts for a better manner of life, he cleanses his present existence which is contaminated by evil and vanquishes irrationality through reason. But if man follows his irrational passions with the help of the skins belonging to irrational beasts, he will be advised in another way to choose the good after his departure from the body because he now knows how good differs from evil. He can only partake of the divinity unless he has purged his soul of filth by the cleansing fire.  (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Concerning Those Who Have Died (aka "Sermon on the Dead"), ca 382 A.D.)

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) built upon the precedent of cleansing fire and smelting:

If [Purgatory] is understood in a properly Christian way when it is grasped christologically, in terms of the Lord himself as the judging fire which transforms us and conforms us to his own glorified body, then we shall come to a very different conclusion [than theologian Gnilka who denied a purgatorial interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:10-15]. Does not the real Christianizing of the early Jewish notion of a purging fire lie precisely in the insight that the purification involved does not happen through some thing, but through the transforming power of the Lord himself, whose burning flame cuts free our closed-off heart, melting it, and pouring it into a new mold to make it fit for the living organism of his body? (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 229, 1988)

The consistent point in these interpretations related to 1 Cor. 3 are that the purpose of the cleansing fire is to make us fit for heaven.

An objection to the traditional understanding of 1 Cor 3:10-15
One may encounter non-Catholic objections to the traditional understanding of 1 Cor. 3:10-15. 19th century Protestant theologian Adam Clarke offers some objections still in use today:

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss - If he have preached the necessity of incorporating the law with the Gospel, or proclaimed as a doctrine of God any thing which did not proceed from heaven, he shall suffer loss - all his time and labor will be found to be uselessly employed and spent. (Clarke, Commentary on 1 Corinthians)

Clarke limits the application of the passage to preachers alone. Yet the greater text belies this conclusion. Paul begins the excerpt by referring to the foundation laid by his ministry, followed by the ministry of Apollos, and growth caused by God (3:5-8), which includes Paul's audience, "God's field." (v. 9) The passage is then immediately followed with "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit dwells in you?" (v. 16) This of course would apply to any Christian. Clarke's interpretation overlooks that all Christians have a responsibility to build upon the laid foundation that is Christ. But in Paul's theology, all those with the Spirit are called to "building up the church." (1 Cor. 14:12, cf. Eph 4:11-12) Clarke concludes the "loss" suffered by the preacher is likely the waste of "his time and labor." Yet this does not appear in the text, nor does it account for v. 15 which states that the person will go through fire.

Clarke continues with an explicit rejection of purgatory.

The popish writers have applied what is here spoken to the fire of purgatory ... The fire mentioned here is to try the man's work, not to purify his soul; but the dream of purgatory refers to the purging in another state what left this impure; not the work of the man, but the man himself; but here the fire is said to try the work: ergo, purgatory is not meant even if such a place as purgatory could be proved to exist; which remains yet to be demonstrated. 

Here, Clarke disembodies the work from the man. He seems to only read the first half of verse 15 but not the second: "If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." In Clarke's understanding, the work and the man are separate alien things. Yet Paul states that the person will be saved "through fire." Elsewhere, Paul uses language expressing the commingling of a work with a person. For example, in his same letter to the Corinthians: "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful." (1 Cor. 13:4) A person is patient or kind. Love cannot exist without a person to exercise it. If we read 1 Cor. 13:4 with the eye Clarke uses for 1 Cor. 3, we would have to say love, and not the person exercising it, is patient or kind. Yet Paul is describing a person by the person's work. If we go back to 1 Cor. 3:15, it now makes sense. The fire will try the works, as in the person with regard to his/her works.

Pope Benedict XVI (the former Cardinal Ratzinger), recognizes this feature of the text in an encyclical:

In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast. (Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 46)

Perhaps Clarke's greatest failure in interpretation is in neglecting the figure of purification in the passage––smelting gold and silver. Refer again to the passages at the start of the section labeled "Gold & Silver." Paul echoes the Scriptural tradition of purifying precious metals. Clarke's opposition to purification in the passage also places him at odds with the many ECFs (linked above) who recognize the purifying quality of the imagery.


PURGATORY ILLUSTRATED
In order to capture the basic idea of purgatory, perhaps a visual demonstration may also help.

Certainly, additional Scripture could be cited to support the positions in the above illustration. Of interest, the famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis embraced the idea of purgatory for the very reason that he acknowledged unclean stains remnant on earth-faring humans.

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.' (C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, p. 108-109)

In basic form, the idea unfolds thusly: At Point A, the terrestrial soul retains blemishes and failures, incurs temporal consequences of sin, and remains prone to sin. At Point B, the heavenly soul has been ever purified from such imperfections. Simple reasoning recognizes the necessary transformation from Point A to Point B, simply because Point A and Point B are different. To go from unclean to clean, a cleansing must occur.

As Cardinal Ratzinger put it:

The essential Christian understanding of Purgatory has now become clear. ... It is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 230)

DOES PURGATORY TAKE "TIME"?
Historically, Christians have sometimes referred to measurements of "time" in purgatory.  For instance:

What years of Purgatory will there be for those Christians who have no difficulty at all in deferring their prayers to another time on the excuse of having to do some pressing work! If we really desired the happiness of possessing God, we should avoid the little faults as well as the big ones, since separation from God is so frightful a torment to all these poor souls! (St. John Vianney (1786-1859), Sermon on Purgatory)

However, to measure purgatory by the units of some worldly clock is not part of the essential doctrine. Notice that even in St. John Vianney's excerpt, his reference to "years" corresponds to the severity of faults that need purgation. His theology is accurate insofar as the figure he uses. To give a parallel example, think of how many Christians have referred to heaven "above" or hell "below." Yet the doctrines referenced in this language are not bound to certain geographic altitudes that can be terrestrially located. In similar fashion, the cry of the historical Christian about how "long in purgatory" a soul must spend traditionally corresponds to severity of purgation commensurate with the sinful stains that need cleansing.

Cardinal Ratzinger likewise recognized that earthly time is not part of the doctrine:

The transforming 'moment' of this encounter [Purgatory] cannot be quantified by the measurements of earthly time. It is, indeed, not eternal but a transition, and yet trying to qualify it as of 'short' or 'long' duration on the basis of temporal measurements derived from physics would be naive and unproductive. The 'temporal measure' of this encounter lies in the unsoundable depths of existence, in a passing-over where we are burned ere we are transformed. To measure such Existenzzeit, such an 'existential time,' in terms of the time of this world would be to ignore the specificity of the human spirit in its simultaneous relationship with, and differentation from, the world. (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 230)

IF PURGATORY IS AN ENCOUNTER BETWEEN A SOUL AND CHRIST, HOW CAN WE "INTERFERE" BY PRAYING FOR THE DEAD?
In both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, prayers for the dead are common (cf. Macc. 12:38-45; 2 Tim. 1:16-18). Now, reasonably speaking, those in heaven do not need our prayers, and those eternally lost cannot be helped by our prayers. The prayers are therefore offered for those temporarily in some other condition. The Catechism teaches thusly:

From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. (CCC#1032)

Certainly, a third party praying for someone's well being is grounded firmly in Scripture, as even Paul requested others pray for him (see references in prior post Praying to Saints: A Visual Aid). Think also of the above mention of how Christians are members of the same, singular body, which is Christ's body. There is nothing alien about members of the body offering prayers for one another.

Pope Benedict confronts the question directly in his encyclical:

Now a further question arises: if “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into mine: in what I think, say, do and achieve. And conversely, my life spills over into that of others: for better and for worse. So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification. (Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 48)

What is the Treasury of Merit?

A Catholic.com forums poster recently asked about the "Treasury of Merit" (sometimes called the "Treasury of Satisfaction" or the "Treasury of the Church"). The poster asked if it's infallible teaching and what Scriptural examples support the doctrine. I assembled some of my notes on the subject and thought it would be worth while posting on the blog here as well, with a few edits.

From the Catechism:

#1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things." In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin. 

#1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy." 

#1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body."

#1475 reminds me of Paul's discourse on the unity of the body of Christ: If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. (1 Cor 12:26)


According to Dr. Ludwig Ott, Catholic theologian, the "source of Indulgences is the Church's treasury of satisfaction which consists of the superabundant satisfactions of Christ and of the Saints" is a doctrine that is "sententia certa." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 442) According to Ott, such a degree of certainty is "a teaching of the faith, theologically certain, ...a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation." (p. 9-10)

I lay terms, that all pretty much means it's a truth of the faith whether or not there has been an "official" pronouncement of the doctrine. One could probably find a number of theologians who would argue the Treasury of Merit is infallible teaching based on the consistent voice of the Ordinary Magisterium alone (which means the Church has been consistent on the teaching, even if a council of papal decree didn't write for the specific purpose of defining that issue as a Magisterial proclamation).

Anyway, the teaching is quite sound. At the heart of it, if the Church is the body of Christ (cf. Col 1:24, Eph. 1:22-23), then of course, the members are going to have merit - if they don't, then Christ himself doesn't have merit because he extends through his members. At the heart of opposing the doctrine is a denial of Christ himself!

Here is an excerpt Dr. Scott Hahn wrote on the subject:

How did Moses deliver them from the punishment they deserved? By invoking the merit of their ancestors. He told the Lord: "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it for ever'" (Ex 32:13).

Moses did not try to plead the case of the current generation, except insofar as they were offspring of the great patriarchs. In this story, we can see the temporal remission of punishment. God is going to destroy the Israelites; but he doesn't. We can see Moses' intercession, based upon the treasury of merits, the merit of the Fathers.

When the ancient rabbis discussed this story, they found no other way to explain it. The treasury of merit enabled them to safeguard God's mercy and his justice simultaneously. They applied the same principles to the stories of Noah, whose righteousness served to redeem future generations from the ravages of the flood, and David, whose goodness alone saved his son Solomon from the disaster he merited for himself. (Hahn, Scott, Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots, 192-193)

There are all kinds of Scriptural examples of person A benefitting from the faith of person B. Think of the centurion's servant who is healed because of the faith of the centurian (Matt. 8:5-13), or the paralytic who was healed and forgiven because of the faith of his friends (Mark 2:3-5), or the Canaanite woman who interceded for her daughter, healed by Jesus through the faith of the mother (Matt. 15:22-28).


For a Church doc, refer to Indulgentarium Doctrina (1967) by Pope Paul VI:

This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.

Also, keyword search that document for "treasury" to find additional references. Notice the emphasis on unity of the body, tying into being joined to Christ's body, the Church.

Here are some other related Scriptural examples I think apply:

Sirach 29:9-13 Help a poor man for the commandment's sake, and because of his need do not send him away empty. Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend, and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost. Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High, and it will profit you more than gold. Store up almsgiving in your treasury, and it will rescue you from all affliction; more than a mighty sheild and more than a heavy spear, it will fight on your behalf against your enemy. 

Sirach 3:14 For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and against your sins it will be credited to you. 

Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 

Matthew 19:16-30 Jesus advises rich man to give to poor to acquire treasure in heaven. 

Mark 10:21 (parallel of Mat. 19) And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."  

Proverbs 19:17 He who is generous to the dontrodden makes a loan to the LORD; He will repay him his due.

Most of these quotes focus on treasury as it benefits the depositor (except for the Sirach 29 verse which also speaks of laying up treasure for one's "brother"). But I think they all apply to the Treasury of Merit which benefits satisfaction (CCC#1459-1460) for the depositor as well as others. The verses refer to acts of almsgiving and such and how that covers sin, is a "credit" or "loan" so to speak. It might be worth quoting CCC#1460 to quell any notion that Catholics believe that the Treasury of Merit or satisfaction for sin is something "man" does for himself:

CCC#1460 The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ.

Book Review: The Broken Path

The Broken Path (2011) by Judie Brown catalogs recent behavior among American Catholic bishops. The title refers to the many instances when bishops have "strayed from the path," so to speak, and acted scandalously or contrary to the teachings of the Church. I give the book 7 out of 10 stars.

This book is not an easy one for faithful Catholics to digest. Reading it made me uncomfortable at times. One is forced to confront the idea that bishops do not always act in defense of life, moral doctrine, or other teachings of the Church. I think recognizing the value of this book demands a certain level of maturity, to be able to admit one's own failings and the failings that take place at high levels in his Church. It also takes a certain degree of catechesis to understand that such failings do not mar the unblemished doctrines of faith and morals within the Church. Sometimes the ignorant or anti-Catholics advance the idea that a failure in individual Church leaders' behaviors is a good apologetic against the Catholic idea of infallibility, but such is not the case. Even the very idea of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is not an "infallible" body. Brown quotes Pope Benedict XVI stating: "episcopal conferences have no theological basis; they do not belong to the structure of the Church as willed by Christ..." (p 64)

Brown details several programs supported by the USCCB, for instance, Catholic Charities or the Catholic Health Association, which often advance anti-Church causes like the Obama Administration's health care plan and all it entails, including funding for abortion, contraception, and sterilization. Other groups mentioned throughout this book have influences within the Church that are opposed to Church teaching. Many of these arrangements have gone without much historical protest from bishops. Groups include Planned Parenthood, the largest U.S. abortion provider; the USCCB's "Safe Environment" office which has been met with opposition for reducing parental influence in their children's sexual understanding; and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a group headed by supporters of abortion, same-sex "marriage," and contraception in schools; to name a few. Brown devotes a number of pages to these and other organization bringing scandal and dissent to the Church.

When some bishops work in tandem with or act passively in the face of such organizations, Catholics are sent a confusing or contradictory message. A good summary of such problems is in Brown's words is: "lack of consistency sends a mixed message to Catholics." (p 156)

One example she gives of the USCCB's confusing action occurred in 2004. Catholic Answers produced a voters guide identifying five "non-negotiables." Brown writes:

The lawyers for the bishops rejected the voting guide, claiming that it was confusing to people and that only its officially approved material should be used. This is strange, indeed, since the Catholic Answers publication agrees 100 percent with Catholic teaching that identifies five 'non-negotiable' subjects by which a politician is to be evaluated: abortion, euthanasia, human embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage. (p 100)

If one researches the background of this matter, it seems the USCCB's lawyers discouraged use of the guide because it could appear to favor a political candidate and thus jeopardize non-profit status. However, it seems there is a difference in actively discouraging something's use versus not legally claiming ownership of it. At the least, the USCCB lawyers' actions and subsequent refusal to clarify causes confusion and scandal in the Church.

One of the problems Brown cites is a culture of "Americanism." By this term, Brown refers to a sentiment prevalent in the United States that "any group, or individual, could 'correct the pope' with impunity..." (p 19) It is "an amalgamation of pluralism, modernism, atheism, Gnosticism, and Arianism." (p 32) The Arian heresy was a 4th century doctrinal scandal in the Church in which the priest Arius sought to correct doctrine taught by the Magisterium. Such attitudes depart from the chain of Apostolic succession through which Christ promised truth would be taught by the Holy Spirit. Individuals and even individual bishops who thus depart from the consistent teaching of the Church cause error, scandal, and confusion.

Brown details a variety of quotations and actions/inactions by individual American bishops in recent years, bringing what is a significant problem in the American Church to the attention of the faithful. For example, she describes the of silence from some bishops who remain idle on the sidelines while openly pro-choice politicians continue to receive Holy Communion while supporting the so-called "right" to terminate an infant in the womb. In chapter 8 of the book, Brown reviews Canon 915 on providing the Eucharist and scandals within the Church violating that Canon.

Another specific example includes a letter written by Bobby Schindler to his bishop, Robert Lynch, in 2007. Schindler was critical of the bishop's lack of voice when his sister Terri Schiavo was publicly starved to death in Florida in 2005 in an act of euthanasia. (p 157ff)

Brown's book is fraught with footnotes linking to various articles and publications. It would be daunting to cross-reference them all, and the ones I perused were sound references. There was one long story she relayed, of which I was familiar, that I found wanting for detail. (p 124ff) In 2010, Phoenix archbishop Thomas Olmsted renounced St. Joseph Hospital's Catholic status and notified an involved nun that she had incurred excommunication. A woman received an abortion at the hospital. Brown did point out that Church teaching forbids surgical abortion, but the story did involve complexities that I thought warranted further explanation. The hospital justified the abortion in the following words:

Tests revealed that [the mother] now had life-threatening pulmonary hypertension. The chart notes that she had been informed that her risk of mortality was close to 100 percent if she continued the pregnancy. The medical team contacted the Ethics Consult team for review. The consultation team talked to several physicians and nurses as well as reviewed the patient’s record. The patient and her family, her doctors and the Ethics Consult team agreed that the pregnancy could be terminated, and that it was appropriate since the goal was not to end the pregnancy but save the mother’s life. (quoted in National Catholic Reporter, Dec. 22, 2010)

Brown's focus in this story was to demonstrate the scandal of nuns involved with the hospital complicit in the abortion against the bishop's position. However, I would liked to have seen Brown provide more information on why the bishop's position was what it was. Bishop Omsted wrote of his decision:

[E]arlier this year, it was brought to my attention that an abortion had taken place at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. When I met with officials of the hospital to learn more of the details of what had occurred, it became clear that, in the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld; but that the baby was directly killed, which is a clear violation of ERD #45. It also was clear that the exceptional cases, mentioned in ERD #47, were not met, that is, that there was not a cancerous uterus or other grave malady that might justify an indirect and unintended termination of the life of the baby to treat the grave illness. In this case, the baby was healthy and there were no problems with the pregnancy; rather, the mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed. This is contrary to the teaching of the Church (Cf. Evangelium Vitae, #62).

In other words, the goal of the procedure was to kill the baby. It was an abortion. The baby was a healthy human being. The baby was not given due consideration as a person. They were not treating the mother's cancer that resulted in the death of the baby. This perspective, though a difficult one, is why the bishop stood his ground.

Another nitpick I had in the book was with this statement: "Magisterial teaching refers to doctrinal pronouncements from the pope on matters of faith and morals." (p 5) That statement is not quite accurate and may give the impression that only the pope ever formulates dogma. From the catechism:

CCC#100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

CCC#892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The Pope, though he has a special role, is not on an island. There is a real unity there that includes not only the Pope but the other apostolic successors. Though that was just a small snippet of Brown's book, I know, as one who delves in the world of Catholic apologetics, someone might find themselves confused by, or an anti-Catholic might consider it opportune to utilize Brown's sentence as it is worded.

Brown has a significant amount on President Barack Obama and those who influence the Church. Obama is certainly well-known as perhaps the greatest opponent to Catholic teaching in the history of the United States executive office. The current HHS mandate is a violation of the very rights of religious persons in the U.S. I thought that section tended to carry on lengthily as Brown gave detail after detail of Obama's political appointments, health care, and other actions.

Although many of the politically-intertwined scandals in the Church involve Democrat politicians, Brown does not limit her criticism only to one party. For instance, she praises Bishop John Smith of New Jersey for writing a critical letter to a school for inviting Republican and pro-choice politician Christine Todd Whitman to speak. (p 84) The problem is not one limited to political lines. And as some good writers have pointed out, the Church is neither Republican or Democrat. The Church advances the truth of Christ.

Along with the likes of Bishop Smith, Brown is sure to include a number of uplifting stories throughout the book of brave bishops who have stood up to politicians or other Church dissenters, upholding the teaching of the Church despite the criticism they knew they would receive. So even though the main purpose of the book is to show what is the problem, Brown includes a balance of positive stories for the faithful, offering hope that our bishops often do what they are, as shepherds, called to do.

And even after the writing of this book, perhaps there are more signs of faithful shepherds in the U.S. At one point, Brown writes: "What is it about birth control that scares bishops into silence." And yet in February 2012, after the publication of The Broken Path, 100% of all 181 diocesan U.S. Catholic bishops publicly condemned the HHS mandate, which demanded even religious bodies fund birth control. Perhaps voices like Brown's have helped remind the U.S. Bishops to all stand for the teaching of the Church as many of their peers have done in the past. Her last chapter is called: "Holy Priests are the Cure" which includes sections on several heroic bishops.

Church & Science: Fr. Faura, Fr. Algue, & cyclones

Earlier this year, I heard a radio interview involving skeptics who took as gospel the idea that religion is simply an impediment to "progress" (a term not clearly defined by said skeptics). Following is another review of Catholic contributions to science.

One of the greatest scientists in the study of tropical cyclones was Father Jose P. Algue, a Jesuit priest (1856-1930). The Philippine Encyclopedia states:

A momentous meeting with the great Jesuit scientist Fr. Federico Faura [1840-1897] in 1889 changed the young Algue's life. He accompanied Father Faura to Italy and France to acquire scientific equipment for the famed Manila Observatory. It seemed that Father Algue was destined for a life of science in the tropics. To this end, his superiors sent him in 1891 to Georgetown university in Washington DC, for advanced studies in meteorology, seismology, and astronomy.

The priest is perhaps best known for his studies on tropical cyclones. Some of his works on the science of cyclones are available online. One of his books, The Cyclones of the Far East, offers detailed hour by hour accounts of various tropical cyclones, the cloud and barometer patterns that precede and accompany them, and includes methods for sailors to identify weather threats. For instance, he wrote:

In a general way, we may say that when the monsoon increases considerably above the sixth parallel of north latitude, or when the winds from east to north tend to freshen, without any increase of pressure, but with a steady or falling barometer, we may be certain that some atmospheric perturbation is passing or will pass by very low parallels. When this happens the currents in the Surigao Strait are very strong, and navigation is very dangerous for small boats close to the eastern coasts of Mindanao and even more so in the Jolo Sea, and the south of the China Sea. (Algue, The Cyclones of the Far East, p. 240)

After perusing Fr. Algue's book, I chose this excerpt because it contributes to dispelling the myth that the Church and science are conflicting enterprises. Fr. Algue's contribution to sea-faring safety incorporated the importance of empirical observation, the hallmark of scientific study.

The historical author Augstin Udías Vallina wrote in his book Searching the Heavens and the Earth: The History of Jesuit Observatories of how Fr. Algue's work was taken and utilized in the world of science, perhaps even by way of plagiarism:

Algué identified the zones of origin and average trajectories of typhoons. He discovered two basic types: trajectories of parabolic shape that moved around the annual center of high pressure in the North Pacific in a clockwise direction, and a second type of storm moving in a linear path westward from the Philippines to decay over southern China. In 1900 Paul Bergholz, director of Bremen Observatory, Germany, published under his own name what was really a German translation of Algué's book. This was recognized in 1903 in the journal Nature by R.H. Scott who made the revision of the English version of Bergholz' book. Bergholz was not satisfied with his appropriation of Algué's book, but in England also constructed an instrument under his name which was an exact copy of Algué's barocyclonometer. Bergholz's book and instruments were extensively used in German ships. (Vallina, Searching the Heavens, p. 152)

The history of the barocyclometer has a trail involving other priests. As accounted in the Manila Bulletin:

In 1869, the Spanish government put [Father] Faura in charge of the observatory in response to the need for advance warnings against typhoons. The Jesuit missionaries, who operated the observatory, later acquired the Universal Meteorograph, a device used for weather forecasting. The device was an innovation of Fr. Angelo Seechi [1818-1878] who headed the Vatican Observatory in Rome during that time. On July 7, 1879, Father Faura warned of a typhoon crossing northern Luzon. In November of the same year, he predicted a strong typhoon crossing over Manila. The accuracy of his warnings boosted the reputation of the observatory. ... With the success of the Manila Observatory, the Spanish government designated it as an official institution. Secondary stations were set up throughout Luzon. Faura designed the aneroid barometer and the most accurate weather gauge in the country.

According to a 1910 entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, many lives were saved as a result of Fr. Faura's November 1879 warning:

At other ports, to which warning of the approaching storm could not be sent for lack of telegraphic communication, the destruction was enormous. Forty-two vessels were wrecked in Southern Luzon alone, and may lives were lost. (Finegan, P. (1910). Manila Observatory. In The Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Fr. Faura also founded the Manila Observatory, for which Fr. Algue would later serve as director. In his work, Fr. Faura invented what is now known as the 1886 "'Faura barometer'" [which] was offered to the public, and it passed immediately into general use among the navigators of the Philippine waters and the China Sea." The Catholic Encyclopedia article concludes:

[Fr. Algue] gave the public his 'barocyclonometer', an improvement on Father Faura's invention, by which storms may be foretold, not only in the Philippines, but throughout the entire Orient.

So that's just a light biography of these two Catholic priests, along with the above mentioned Fr. Seechi, who contributed immensely to the world of science.