The problem with the “good fruit” argument
Almost two years ago I wrote a post about the “good fruit” argument: that almost knee-jerk reaction that followers of a person or movement trot out whenever their hero is associated with illicit behavior – “look at all the good fruit he has produced! Didn’t Jesus say, ‘by your fruits you shall know them’? So he must be legitimate!” We saw this argument with Fr. Maciel, we still see it with Medjugorje, and now we see it with Fr. Corapi. Thus, I thought it fitting to just re-run that post here, with a few comments thrown in that address Corapi’s situation in red:
Often when there is debate within the Church about some controversial movement or vision or person, defenders will trot out the positive “fruits” as a definitive proof that the phenomenon is legitimate and from God. For example, those who believe that the Virgin Mary is appearing in Medjugorje will note all the good fruit – conversions, increased prayer, return to the sacraments – as proof positive that it is not a hoax or delusion or something man-made. In this article, the author advocates rejecting the legitimate authority Christ has instituted – the local bishop – based solely on the fact that “the fruits, as many have said, are undeniable.”
Likewise, defenders of the Legion of Christ, founded by the fraud Fr. Marcial Maciel, note all the good fruit that the Legion has produced – thousands of priests, support of Catholic orthodoxy – as proof that even if Maciel was a deceiver, the order he founded and which is largely based on his personality is still legitimate.
[In the case of Fr. Corapi, we have a priest abandon his priesthood simply on the fear that the investigation would be biased, yet many of his 'fans' act like this fear is reason enough to abandon sacred vows].
The Scriptural support for such defenders is of course Christ’s words in Matthew 7:15-20:
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s [or sheepdog's] clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
So what should we make of these arguments? Most people take one of two views:
1) Deny that there is any good fruit. I think this is a mistake in the case of both Medjugorje and the Legion. The evidence is simply overwhelming. I myself became Catholic partially through the influence of Medjugorje and I know many faithful Catholics who have deepened their faith through their associated with the Legion of Christ. It is unquestionable that these phenomenon have produced good fruit. [Likewise with Fr. Corapi's ministry].
2) Deny that there is any bad fruit. Again, in both the case of Medjugorje and the Legion, there are documented cases of “bad fruit.” A priest closely associated with the Medjugorje seers has been defrocked, many followers of the visions are openly advocating disobedience to legitimate authority, and there have been cases of theological errors in some of the messages from “Mary.” Likewise, the “bad fruit” from Fr. Maciel should be obvious, as news of his double life has been leaking out for months now. It is clear that these two phenomenon are not immaculate. [And in the case of Fr. Corapi, the "bad fruit" is the actions of Corapi himself over the past few months].
I think the problem is that people are using the wrong biblical passage to evaluate these events. We should not look to the “good fruit/bad fruit” passage, but instead listen to Christ’s words about the wheat and the weeds found in Matthew 13:24-30:
24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28” ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “
In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that things will not be clear-cut on this side of heaven. Both the wheat and the weeds will grow together and we must wait until the harvest – the return of Christ – to have them separated. Thus, God can work good out of even bad situations (and, likewise, the devil can work evil out of good situations). We cannot simply assume a phenomenon like Medjugorje or the Legion is completely evil because of the evil associated with it, nor can we assume it is 100% from God because good has come out of it. As Scripture says, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28); in other words, God is not afraid to use ANY situation or person to work out His holy will – even if the situation or person is against God themselves. [In other words, even if Fr. Corapi happened to be a scoundrel, that does not mean that people could not have been converted to the Church through his preaching].
This might sound quite confusing for the average Catholic – how are we supposed to evaluate these phenomenon which have both good and evil associated with them? Fortunately, we have the magisterium of the Church to guide us; it is their job – guided by the Holy Spirit – to weigh both the good and bad associated with these phenomenon and determine if it is something that is fundamentally good with some “bad apples” or if it is something that should be rejected by Catholics because the weeds are so strong that they ultimately choke out the wheat. In both the case of Medjugorje and the Legion, this is exactly what the magisterium is doing now, and we would do well to listen and follow their guidance. [Of course, in the case of Fr. Corapi, he has taken the matter out of the Church's hands by quitting the priesthood. But the fact that he has removed himself from that process and publicly denounced the bishop of Corpus Christi before that bishop even had a chance to actually conduct the investigation is a sure sign of at least partial rejection of Church authority].
[End post]
I will close with a final thought that I keep coming back to when considering Fr. Corapi’s recent actions:
A priest offering a single Mass, even a private one, is of infinite more value than all the talks and sermons that have been, or ever will be, given.
I am the author of the medjugorje article. I think it is important to clarify a couple of things. I did not say that the fruits of medjugorje are the “sole” reason to accept medjugorje. My views on medjugorje are based on a deep personal investigation. Most critics of Medjugorje have really never looked into the matter with any kind of maturity. If medjugorje was so flawed it would have been condemned and the hoax revealed long ago. The stubborn fact remains that mystery of Medjugorje endures.
One point I would like to make is that “conservative” Catholics seem to have a tendency to fall prey to cults of personality . Both marciel and Corapi were both demanding “my mother (Mary) wears combat boots” orthodox conservative catholics with charismatic personalities. In contrast the “seers” of Medjugorje remind everyone that they are simple people like the rest us. They simply say “We see what we see”
Eric, you cited one of my favorite scripture passages, the Weeds and the Wheat. It helps me understand that in this life we must put up with the weeds and that they will be there always. But so will the wheat. Eventually God’s justice will prevail.
What is the source of your final thought?
Steve, I don’t have an opinion either way regarding Medjugorje. But for you to say “…if medjugorje was so flawed it would have been condemned…” is an echo of many Legionary/Regnum Christi defenders, who say “it must be good, the Pope hasn’t banned it” Our shepherds don’t typically take away our freedom to think and choose for ourselves. A bigger clue for me in evaluating Medjugorje is that the Church has had ample time and investigation to approve it officially. Until it does so, I’ll keep sites like Lourdes, Fatima etc. on my travel list and wait for the Church in her wisdom to speak affirmatively for Medjugorje. Peace.
ruth anne the big difference between medjugorje and the legionary is that from the get go the legionary were accepted by the catholic church. Nobody investigated or questioned their activities. Medjugorje on the other hand has been investigated and challanged all along the way. There is not a rock unturned by those hopping to reveal the truth of Medjugorje and yet after thirty years the mystery endures …Big big difference
Good post. I’m not familiar with the movements you mention but I am a particular fan of the wheat and tares parable. I remember a theology lecturer illustrating the parable by announcing he was going to ‘shoot the tares’. He formed his fingers into a gun and pointed at his own forehead.
Thanks for reminding me of my propensity to desire, accept and justify weed due to my ever present concupiscent human nature. This brings to mind an idiom I’m fond of: ‘A lost ball in high weeds,’ which now becomes ‘outside the Church, I’m just a lost ball in high weeds.’
Steve, I think you mistakenly addressed your comment to me, but it should have been addressed to Sandy.
Steve,
Thank you for adding your perspective on the matter. Two things I’d like to challenge, however:
Most critics of Medjugorje have really never looked into the matter with any kind of maturity.
It shows a certain lack of maturity on your part to insult those who disagree with you on this matter. The local bishop and many other good people have disputed Medjugorje – are they all simply immature?
If medjugorje was so flawed it would have been condemned and the hoax revealed long ago.
This does not logically follow. Fr. Maciel was extremely “flawed”, yet he was not condemned or revealed as a fraud until after he died. A good fraud is one that gets away with it for a long time.
Note again that I do not deny that many good fruits have come out of Medjugorje, but that does not mean that the visions themselves are authentic.
medjugorje is the fulfillment of fatima.
@Richard,
In response to your fulfillment of fatima proclamation: … or, at this point, just as easily a mockery.
About Bishops and the investigation of the supernatural . I was recently ask to look into the so called “Weeping Statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Seton” that took place in Virgina some years ago. I have spoken to eye witnesses ( one a Harvard Lawyer) and Father Jim Bruse who was the central figure during the events. Conclusion – The Diocese never investigated the events. The events were highly publicized and the story was broadcast across the country on TV. Justice Scalia still mentions the events in speeches (i have written about this) – I have spoken with the Chancellors of the diocese of Virginia office who had authority over the events and they had and continue to have no interest in any of it. There are hundreds of witnesses and they ignore them all. My point is I have first have experience with the “maturity” of Bishops and their office of authority when it comes to investigation and I can tell you it is superficial, shallow and motivated to simply end the all talk of discussions. Furthermore Bishop Peric has been disrespectful towards Cardinal Schonborn during the Cardinal’s visit to Medjugorje. And importantly Bishop Peric has had thirty years to reveal the hoax and to the Bishop’s never ending dismay the narrative of the events taking place in Medjugorje that ring true with many Catholics comes from the seers. You say the visionaries are not authentic yet after thirty years the doubters have added nothing to the argument.
Steve,
Thank you for confirming my skepticism regarding Medjugorje. Anything which fosters such a dismissive spirit towards the successors to the apostles is not something I want to be associated with.
why don’t you put take off your skepticism hat and look into the matter of Medjugorje on your own. if you are going to write about then you might as well do some independent research. Also why is it that the catholic bloggers can rake Cardinal Schonborn over the coals not to mention thousands of priests who view medjugorje favorably and with an open mind and that criticism against these good men not be considered dismissive to the successors of the apostles. The fact remains that Catholics are free to go to medjugorje and are free to look to medjugorje with discernment. Quite frankly it is you who takes a position against the Catholic Churches current status on Medjugorje.
Steve, is it true that there are about 50 secrets scattered among the seers? If not, do you know about how many?
To Kelso …Fifty Secrets? ..That is the first I ever heard that number. The way I understand it is each Visionary (there are six of them) is to receive 10 secrets from the Blessed Mother. All the seers have agreed that one of the secrets is that a “Permanent and indestructible” sigh will be left on apparition hill so that unbelievers will accept the apparitions as true. I have never heard about fifty secrets and as you can guess the number is tossed about by those who seek to discredit medjugorje. With that said I do understand that some of the secrets are about the town of medjugorje and and some are specific about each of the Visionaries. So are there more than ten secrets in total? Probably. But the fact remains that the Blessed Mother has promised that each visionary will receive ten secrets.
Steve said: Furthermore Bishop Peric has been disrespectful towards Cardinal Schonborn during the Cardinal’s visit to Medjugorje. And importantly Bishop Peric has had thirty years to reveal the hoax and to the Bishop’s never ending dismay the narrative of the events taking place in Medjugorje that ring true with many Catholics comes from the seers.
And someday, we will thank God that Bishop Peric and his predecessor did not sacrifice objectivity for subjectivism.
Before Medjugorje, bishops wouldn’t think of setting foot on the site of an unapproved private revelation without first contacting the local bishop. Further, a bishop wouldn’t think of setting foot on such a site without that bishop’s approval. And, lastely, when the visionaries of Medjugorje are prohibited from speaking on Church property in the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in all Croatian dioceses, it is a slap in the face to the bishops of dioceses making up the former Yugoslavia when a Cardinal hosts those visionaries in his cathedral. This too, is a fruit.
To Diane
Before Medjugorje Bishops could burn heretics like St. Joan of Arc without concerns of outside interference. Also the Catholic Church i.e. the Vatican has ruled that Bishop Peric’s views on the private revelations taking place at Medjugorje are his “personal” views. Why you can not understand what that means continues to baffle me. The Vatican and the Holy Mother Church remains “open” to the events at Medjugorje. It is you Diane that has ruled against Medjugore and you continue to issue instructions to Bishops, priests, and Cardinals on what is proper behavior towards Medjugorje. Please let the Vatican finish their work.