Many times I have heard from fundamentalist Protestants the claim that the Church is “the Great Whore of Babylon” of which the Bible speaks in chapter 17 of the Book of Revelation. “The Bible says it very clearly,” they tell me. In this chapter I have wished to offer a brief summary of the reasons they give to justify their interpretation, and the responses that Catholic apologists have provided.
Where Did These Interpretations Originate?
Throughout history this interpretation has been adopted by various heretical groups, among them the Albigensians (Gnostic heretics with Manichaean tendencies), and subsequently the Protestant reformers (Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Knox, etc.). Given those antecedents, it is no surprise that it has been taken up by numerous fundamentalist groups today.
Who Are the Current Proponents of This Interpretation?
Given their great number it is impossible to mention them all, but among the most widely read authors one could name:
A Woman Rides the Beast, by Dave Hunt (translated into Spanish as “Una mujer cabalga la bestia”)
The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop (Las dos Babilonias)
Babylon Mystery Religion, by Ralph Woodrow (Babilonia Misterio Religioso)
Of all these, Ralph Woodrow has retracted what he wrote in his book, and although he remains a Protestant, he published a second book refuting his previous arguments. Despite this, many Protestant bookstores continue selling his first book without selling the second.
Arguments Based on Fallacious Reasoning
In order to understand the root flaw of these arguments, one must be somewhat familiar with the fallacies they employ to construct their syllogisms. To illustrate this, I will cite an example put forward by Greg Oatis in his article “The Paganism of the Catholic Church”
“‘The golden arches’ are known the world over as the identifying symbol of McDonald’s. However, we must point out that the arch was commonly used by the ancient Babylonians in their gates and palaces. In fact, in paintings made by the Babylonians, we see that their kings are depicted in arch-shaped frames! We also know that Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, ordered his subjects to worship a golden image (Daniel 3:5-10). And Babylon was known in the ancient world as ‘the golden city.’ Finally, note that the first letter of McDonald’s, the M, is the thirteenth letter of the (English) alphabet, a number recognized as possessing a mystical power and bringing bad luck. Can that be a mere coincidence? Indeed, what does the M point to besides McDonald’s? Clearly to Moloch, the pagan god of fire worshiped in Babylon. And what is used to heat the food in a modern McDonald’s? Electricity — which many would associate with a controlled form of fire! Therefore, who can doubt that the McDonald’s restaurant chain, known for its golden arches, is in reality a mystery cult connected to the fire god worshiped by the ancient Babylonian royalty?”
If you were to use the above reasoning to prove that McDonald’s is a secret “pagan” cult that worships the god Moloch, you would surely end up bursting out laughing. The curious thing is that essentially the same fallacies used in that example are the ones fundamentalists use to prove their arguments (analogy, non sequitur, etc.).
Ralph Woodrow writes in his retraction:
“Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, select and choose similarities — and why anything could be ‘proved’!”
Thus, it is not difficult to find in some ancient culture a pagan goddess holding a baby in her arms, then find an image of the Virgin Mary carrying Jesus, and place it as “proof” that the veneration of Mary really derives from an ancient cult to a pagan goddess. The same can be done today with almost any belief, practice, or culture — inventing a parallel based on casual similarities and assuming origin without the least historical rigor — and there will be no shortage of people who believe it to be serious, documented research, and will even send letters of congratulation… and if you do not believe it, ask Dan Brown, who has made millions that way.
It is worth noting that with this way of drawing conclusions one can paganize even Scripture itself. Below we show some examples of this:
Example 1:
According to some scholars and academics, Moses never existed, but is rather a replica of a legend about the Sumerian ruler Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 B.C.), who was placed in a basket of rushes and abandoned in the waters of the Euphrates until he was rescued by a water-carrier who adopted and raised him. Today a study conducted on the original languages of both stories has discovered that in the story of Moses there are words that could not have come from the Babylonian legend; yet many still believe that the story of Moses is a “Babylonian retread.”
Example 2:
Some historians believe that the Bible’s account of the flood is a plagiarism of a much older Sumerian legend known as the “Ziusudra Cycle.” In that legend the gods decide to destroy humanity on account of the many offenses committed by it. However, the god Enki warns of this to King Ziusudra of Shuruppak, and commands him to build a vessel so that he can be saved with his family, along with animals and plants of every kind.
The flood occurred, according to the legend, and after seven days and seven nights it ceased, and Ziusudra was able to leave the boat.
Example 3:
The same can be said of the story of Esau and Jacob, since there is a similar story in which Acrisius (son of Abas, king of Argos, and of Aglaïa; father of Danaë) and his twin brother Proetus struggled with each other even while still in their mother’s womb. As adults, they disputed the throne, and, since Acrisius won, Proetus was expelled from the kingdom; but he returned with an army and compelled his brother to divide the Argolid: Argos and its surroundings would go to Acrisius, while Proetus took Tiryns, Midea, and the coastal region. He married Eurydice, daughter of Lacedaemon, and had a daughter, Danaë. Having learned from an oracle that the son of Danaë would cause his death, and since the precautions taken to prevent the girl’s motherhood proved fruitless — for she was made pregnant by Zeus — he cast her into the sea in a chest along with the newborn Perseus, but both were saved. Years later, Perseus wished to see his grandfather, who, upon learning of this, fled to Larissa, a city of Thessaly far removed from Argos; however, the king of Larissa, Teutamides, organized games at that time which Perseus attended. Acrisius was there as a spectator, and the discus thrown by his grandson, fatally deflected by the wind, struck him on the head and mortally wounded him, thus fulfilling the oracle. The fable of Proetus and Acrisius corresponds to the mythological theme of rival twins, and in the detail of the struggle within the maternal womb it coincides with the story of Esau and Jacob recounted in Genesis.
Following that line of thinking, why not say that belief in the resurrection of Christ arose from paganism, which taught that Osiris and Dionysus, gods of fertility, died and rose again? Why not say that the title King of Kings that we give to Jesus Christ also comes from paganism, since Nebuchadnezzar is called king of kings in Daniel 2:37? Why not say that baptism also has pagan origins? After all, baptism was previously a pagan religious rite practiced among the peoples of antiquity and was common in many ancient religions, such as the Eleusinian rites or Hinduism and Buddhism. The Romans of Christ’s time took an interest in the mystery religions of Egypt and Babylon, in some of which baptism was practiced as a ritual. For example, in the initiation rites of the cult of Isis, the initiate confessed his sins before other devotees and was then baptized in the belief that the ritual bath purified him of his faults and enrolled him in the ranks of the savior goddess.
What, in Summary, Are the Reasons Those Works Put Forward to Accuse the Catholic Church of Being the Harlot?
For reasons of space I will address only a summary of the main arguments those works put forward.
The Harlot Is Described as a Great City or a Powerful Empire. A Great City That Sits upon Seven Hills
“And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth.”[1]
And here they assume that this refers to Rome, more specifically to the Roman Catholic Church.
“This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings.”[2]
Here they object that Rome is situated upon seven hills (Quirinal, Viminal, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Caelian, Aventine), just as the Harlot is (recently a Protestant was telling me “it was too much of a coincidence” that both should be upon seven hills)
But if the biblical texts refer to the Harlot as a City, and not as a Church, the argument begins to look thin. Now, a fundamentalist will say “The Vatican is a city!” — well, without discussing for the moment the difference between a City and an institution with its seat in a city, the truth is that the Vatican does not sit upon seven hills (unlike ancient pagan Rome), since it is located to the west of the Tiber, whereas the seven hills of ancient Rome were to the east. Therefore, if the argument is that the Catholic Church is the Harlot because the Vatican is a city that sits upon seven hills, this argument also fails.
In addition to this, it must be noted that not only the ancient city of Rome was built upon seven hills, but also Jerusalem, whose hills were Scopus, Nob, the Mount of Destruction, Mount Zion, the hill situated to the southwest also called by this name Mount Zion, Mount Ophel, and the Rock. It would therefore be more coherent to assume that the biblical texts refer either to pagan Rome or to Jerusalem, since they were great cities situated upon seven hills. (And all of this assuming that the term mountains is to be interpreted literally)
She Sheds the Blood of the Saints and Prophets
“…and in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth.”[3]
“And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly.”[4]
But if the Harlot was drunk with the blood of the martyrs and Prophets, there is yet another problem with the Protestant theses, because it is Christ Himself who identifies the city of Jerusalem as the one that kills the Prophets.
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”[5]
Christ also said that it was not fitting for a prophet to die outside of Jerusalem.
“Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.”[6]
It is the Book of Revelation itself that clearly states that the Great City (the Harlot) is the one where Jesus was crucified (Jerusalem):
“and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”[7]
Nevertheless, they prefer to ignore any serious biblical exegesis and rely instead on their own prejudices, taking “Saints and Prophets” to mean those who suffered religious persecution during the Inquisition. It is curious, however, that they cannot identify with these supposed saints, since no Protestant ecclesial community today identifies with their doctrines. In fact, the same Protestant countries would not have hesitated to judge them in their own inquisitions, which in many cases they did — as was the case of Servetus, burned at the stake by the Calvinists, or the Anabaptists and Arminians, persecuted by Lutherans and Calvinists. Would they then consider the Albigensians, Unitarians, Sabellians, or Nestorians as saints?
The fact that someone suffers religious persecution, regardless of the ideas he professes, does not make him a saint, much less a prophet. Today we could become heretics to the very marrow of our bones, be persecuted for our faith, and be condemned to death — but that would make us neither orthodox, nor saints, nor prophets. And those who think in this way should recall that Catholics suffered the very same persecution in Protestant countries, and those countries do not on that account consider themselves the “harlot.”
She Commits Abominations and Fornicates with the Kings of the Earth
“With her the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of her fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk.”[8]
They present examples of how the Vatican throughout history has maintained relations with various world powers — something that is in no way wrong. The presidents of developed nations today regularly seek counsel not only from the Catholic Church but also from prominent Protestant leaders, and they are not thereby “fornicating with them.” The text of Revelation does not refer to this, but rather to the abominations that apostate Jerusalem continually committed with pagan peoples.
“Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations.”[9]
“Thus says the Lord God, Because your shame was laid bare and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotries with your lovers, and because of all your idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers, with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you loathed; I will gather them against you from every side, and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness.”[10]
“…I will give you into their hand, and they shall throw down your vaulted chamber and break down your lofty places; they shall strip you of your clothes and take your fair jewels, and leave you naked and bare.”[11]
“…you built yourself a vaulted chamber, and made yourself a lofty place in every square.”[12]
“You also played the harlot with the Egyptians…”[13]
“You multiplied your harlotry also with the trading land of Chaldea…”[14]
“How lovesick is your heart, says the Lord God, seeing you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen harlot.”[15]
“Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, Because your shame was laid bare and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotries with your lovers, and because of all your idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers, with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you loathed; I will gather them against you from every side, and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. And I will judge you as women who break wedlock and shed blood are judged, and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy. And I will give you into their hand, and they shall throw down your vaulted chamber and break down your lofty places; they shall strip you of your clothes and take your fair jewels, and leave you naked and bare.”[16]
It is God Himself who charges and identifies Jerusalem as the one that has played the harlot with the kings of the earth and committed abominations.
She Is Clothed in Purple and Scarlet
“Alas, alas, for the great city that was clothed in fine linen, in purple and scarlet, bedecked with gold, with jewels, and with pearls.”[17]
Here there is no shortage of carefully chosen photos of priests and bishops wearing purple and scarlet vestments. The truth is that priests do not dress in “purple and scarlet”; rather, according to the liturgical cycle, the colors of their vestments change. A brief description of the meaning of these colors:
Colors in the Liturgy of the Church
– GREEN: It symbolizes hope. For ancient peoples, green was spring, vegetation, rebirth, the hope of an abundant harvest. The word “green” comes from the Latin word “viride”, meaning “fresh”, “vigorous”, or “flourishing”. This color is used in the liturgy during “ordinary time”, which refers to those days on which no special feast is celebrated.
– WHITE: It symbolizes purity and joy. White is used during Christmas and Easter and for the feasts of the Ascension of Jesus to Heaven and the Epiphany — in short, for events that do not commemorate the Passion and death of Christ. It is also used for the feasts of the Virgin Mary, of the angels, and of saints who were not martyred. The word “white” appears to derive from Old German, from the word “blank”.
– VIOLET or PURPLE: These symbolize penitence and mourning. They are worn during Holy Week, the Sundays of Lent, and the four Sundays of Advent. Violet was the preferred color for the tunics of ancient kings. The word “purple” comes from the Greek “porphyra”, a type of shellfish from which a dye of this color is obtained. The word “violet” comes from the Latin “viola”, the name of a bluish-purple plant.
– RED: It symbolizes fire, blood, and royalty. This color can be seen during the celebrations of the Passion, including Good Friday, and on the days commemorating the deaths of martyrs, Apostles, and evangelists. Being the color of fire, it is the natural choice for Pentecost, as it symbolizes the fiery descent of the Holy Spirit. The word “red” comes from Latin, specifically from the word “russus”.
It is also curious that, since Revelation is a symbolic book, the fundamentalists have taken the colors of the harlot literally, when those colors carry a symbolic meaning. The righteous come out clothed in white (purity and holiness) in contrast to the colors of the harlot (red for shedding the blood of the saints, purple for fornicating with the kings of the earth).
Their literal interpretation fails because the predominant color of the Catholic clergy is white, and because God Himself commanded that the vestments of the Levitical priests be made of purple and scarlet:
“These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a girdle; they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests.
And they shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and of fine twined linen, skillfully worked. It shall have two shoulder-pieces attached to its two edges, that it may be joined together. And the skillfully woven band upon it, to gird it on, shall be of the same workmanship and materials, of gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen.”[18]
“And you shall make a breastpiece of judgment, in skilled work; like the work of the ephod you shall make it; of gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen shall you make it.”[19]
“On its skirts you shall make pomegranates of blue and purple and scarlet stuff, around its skirts, with bells of gold between them.”[20]
“He made the breastpiece, in skilled work, like the work of the ephod, of gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen.”[21]
Conclusion
Much more could be added on this subject, but essentially the fundamentalist argument always operates on this “modus operandi”: an arbitrary way of justifying something one already wishes to believe, and which therefore is not required to be seriously proven.
Notes
- Revelation 17,18 ↩
- Revelation 17,9-10 ↩
- Revelation 18,24. ↩
- Revelation 17,6 ↩
- Luke 13,34 ↩
- Luke 13,33 ↩
- Revelation 11,8 ↩
- Revelation 17,2 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,2 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,36-37 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,39 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,24 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,26 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,29 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,30 ↩
- Ezekiel 16,35-39 ↩
- Revelation 18,16 ↩
- Exodus 28,4-8 ↩
- Exodus 28,15 ↩
- Exodus 28,33 ↩
- Exodus 39,8 ↩
