The Healing of Families book by Fr. Yozefu Ssemakula

  • Thread starter Thread starter fin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I just finished the book, and the prayers in it. It is similar to other works on generational healing and deliverance, such as Healing Your Family Tree by Fr. John Hampsch. The whole concept interests me - that the effects of sin can be passed down through families.

Fr. Joseph’s book was an easy read, and he goes to great lengths to explain his concepts. Some of his ideas I found challenging: we do not recieve healing because we do not pray in the right way, with the right understanding and intention. Nevertheless, I took what he said on faith - it made sense in some ways, and I prayed the prayers for healing and deliverance that he put at the end of the book.

Of course, I’m no expert on theology or all the tenets of our faith, but I found nothing objectionable in the book, only good things - trying to grow closer to God and conform to his will, for ourselves and our families. I too would be interested if anyone else has an opinion, but speaking for myself, I can recommend the book.
 
I have read Fr. Yozeuf’s book, “The Healing of Families” and have attended the three day seminar that goes by the same title. While I have no doubts regarding Fr. Yozefu’s sincere intentions, the book and the seminars are a total disaster from the standpoint of Catholic theology.

For the sake of brevity, I will draw the reader’s attention to one quotation of the book that is not simply problematic–it is actually heretical. On page 41, Fr. Yozefu states, “He (Jesus) did not come to die, but to save, and ended up dying because when the world opposed Him, ever more strongly (which was expected), He did not back down from His mission, so the world extinguished Him.”

This statement literally rips the very heart out of redemptive theology as it has been taught by the Church for 2,000 years by reducing our Lord’s Passion to an unintended outcome from which God was able to work some good. This grave error alone is enough reason to discredit Fr. Yozefu’s teachings. However, there are numerous other problems with the teachings presented in “The Healing of Families”. They include the following:
  1. A dismissive approach to Old Testament passages of Scripture that do not fit the mold of Fr. Yozefu’s teaching.
  2. A denial that God administers temporal punishment (i.e. chastisement) to His children in this life.
  3. An approach to sickness that cannot be harmonized with the constant teaching of the Church as it comes to us through the Doctors of the Church and the Catechism. For example, he lumps virtually all sickness under the heading of “Unnecessary Suffering” and teaches, for all practical purposes, that it is totally within our control to get rid of such suffering if we will but think and pray correctly.
  4. The concept of satanic “generational bondage” that essentially teaches that Satan can maintain rights or prerogatives over the newly baptized (i.e. satanic bondage that survives Baptism).
Because of the limitations of posting message size, I cannot provide a detailed description of the preceding or the refutation of the errors in this post (i.e. it would require multiple postings). Therefore, I have provided a link to my dropbox where readers can obtain a PDF of a detailed critique of the book and its teachings.

dropbox.com/s/k13zofxd228mv6k/Healing%20of%20Families%20Critique.pdf
 
brucesullivan said:
  1. A dismissive approach to Old Testament passages of Scripture that do not fit the mold of Fr. Yozefu’s teaching.
  2. A denial that God administers temporal punishment (i.e. chastisement) to His children in this life.
  3. An approach to sickness that cannot be harmonized with the constant teaching of the Church as it comes to us through the Doctors of the Church and the Catechism. For example, he lumps virtually all sickness under the heading of “Unnecessary Suffering” and teaches, for all practical purposes, that it is totally within our control to get rid of such suffering if we will but think and pray correctly.
  4. The concept of satanic “generational bondage” that essentially teaches that Satan can maintain rights or prerogatives over the newly baptized (i.e. satanic bondage that survives Baptism).
Because of the limitations of posting message size, I cannot provide a detailed description of the preceding or the refutation of the errors in this post (i.e. it would require multiple postings). Therefore, I have provided a link to my dropbox where readers can obtain a PDF of a detailed critique of the book and its teachings.

dropbox.com/s/k13zofxd228mv6k/Healing%20of%20Families%20Critique.pdf
Click to expand...
You said: “A dismissive approach to Old Testament passages of Scripture that do not fit the mold of Fr. Yozefu’s teaching.”

I reply: The bible must be interpreted in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church. We are not fundamentalists but Catholic.

You said: “A denial that God administers temporal punishment (i.e. chastisement) to His children in this life.”

I reply: Actually this is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. God does not punish.

“These two punishments (eternal and temporal) must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.” (CCC 1472)

You said: " For example, he lumps virtually all sickness under the heading of “Unnecessary Suffering”

I reply: “Suffering in itself has no value.” Pope Francis. All sickness are evils God opposes.
 
Nate123, I will not be replying to all of the comments that are posted for a very simple reason: the subject matter is all addressed in the PDF document for which I have provided a link.

The fact is this: I just made my post only minutes ago, so your reply time indicates you did not download the critique to read the actual arguments presented therein. You should do that before reacting.
  1. God does in fact punish (chastise)…read Hebrews 12:7 - 13. The citation you offer from the Catechism does NOT deny that God punishes. In fact, in the context it is discussing the fact that God DOES in fact punish–but it is NOT an act of vengeance, but a loving act intended for our purification and salvation.
  2. I am anything but a fundamentalist in my approach to Scripture. The fact is, however, that Fr. Yozefu picks and chooses his way through the OT in classic fundamentalist fashion (keeping what he likes and dismissing what he does not like). His approach actually runs counter to the Catholic approach. I know this also because of numerous e-mail exchanges I have had with him wherein he takes passages from the OT and NT and applies them in ways that do violence to the context and have no foundation in Sacred Tradition.
  3. You are right to say that suffering IN ITSELF has no value. However, if you will read Salvifici Doloris by Pope St. John Paul II you will see that Christ has given immeasurable value to suffering–raising it to the level of being redemptive. This is a point I make in the critique that I have offered as a download if you will take the time to read it.
So, if you will take the time to read the detailed critique I have offered as a download, you will see that what I present is firmly rooted in the teachings of the Church. If you will not do that, then I have nothing more to say.
 
brucesullivan said:
Nate123, I will not be replying to all of the comments that are posted for a very simple reason: the subject matter is all addressed in the PDF document for which I have provided a link.

So, if you will take the time to read the detailed critique I have offered as a download, you will see that what I present is firmly rooted in the teachings of the Church. If you will not do that, then I have nothing more to say.
Click to expand...
I reacted so fast because of some of the things you said were contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Namely about God sending punishment. Lets me breakdown 1472. It says:

“These two punishments (eternal and temporal) must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.” (CCC 1472)

The first line says “These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without.” It says that the punishments eternal and temporal are not a vengeance inflicted by God from without. It pretty clear in that it says it is not from God. When it says “from without it” it talking about a system. It not that God is sending the suffering down to us but they happen by themselves from within.

The next part says “as following from the very nature of sin.” Here it says that the two punishments follow from the NATURE of sin. Not from God but from what sin does. This is further provable from a quote from Pope Emeritus Benedict when he was Cardinal:

“The wrath of God is a way of saying that I have been living in a way that is contrary to the love that is God. Anyone who begins to live and grow away from God, who lives away from what is good, is turning his life toward wrath. Whoever falls away from love is moving into negativity. So that is not something that some dictator with a lust for power inflicts on you, but is simply a way of expressing the inner logic of a certain action. If I move outside the area of what is compatible with the ideal model by which I am created, if I move beyond the love that sustains me, well then, I just fall into the void, into darkness. I am then no longer in the realm of love, so to speak, but in a realm that can be seen as the realm of wrath.
When God inflicts punishment, this is not punishment in the sense that God has, as it were, drawn up a system of fines and penalties and is wanting to pin one on you. “The punishment of God” is in fact an expression for having missed the right road and then experiencing the consequences that follow from taking the wrong track and wandering away from the right way of living.(“God and the World “pg .104)"

You said: “if you will read Salvifici Doloris by Pope St. John Paul II you will see that Christ has given immeasurable value to suffering–raising it to the level of being redemptive.”

I reply: Yes I have read most of it. Yes are suffering have been raised to the same as Jesus sufferings. Because he suffers with us. But suffering still remains of no value and are evils. The value is that Jesus is suffering with us and we are given the same power to crush evil. I replied for I think its important to see suffering for what it is. Not saying that you don’t, just was pointing to the fact that God opposes suffering.
 
To say that temporal punishments are not acts of vengeance on God’s part does not constitute a denial of the fact that God administers punishments (or, if you prefer, chastisements) in this life. That passage from the Catechism does not deny that God punishes. Rather, it simply denies that such is an expression of vengeance.

The passage of Scripture I cited (Hebrews 12:7-13) indicates that God does chastise us precisely because He loves us. This, of course, fits the model of a Father. If I love my son, I will punish him if need be for his own good. Does that mean that there are not fathers who inflict punishments in spiteful, vengeful ways? Of course not. Anyone can abuse any good thing.

Moreover, the passage you cite references Purgatory as a means of administering temporal punishment for sin. One cannot take God out of the picture of Purgatory (it is his gift to us), and, therefore, one cannot exclude God from the picture of punishment for sin.

But, the thing to be emphasized (which I do in my critique of the HOF), is this: in no way is God’s chastisement / punishment of his children an expression of vengeance. Rather, it is an expression of love.

NOTE: this will be my final post. I promised my family that I would stay of forums because I get OCD about them. I actually violated that promise today and now, well, here I am neglecting my other duties…so, again, I have said all that I can say in the critique.

Peace
 
You said: “To say that temporal punishments are not acts of vengeance on God’s part”

I reply: You are misinterpreting the catechism. Yes it does say the word “vengeance” but it is talking about God NOT inflicting punishment" FROM WITHOUT". Its important that we take the catechism at what is says. Here is a simple question: Where does the “two punishments” originate from? From the very nature…

You said: “The passage of Scripture I cited (Hebrews 12:7-13) indicates that God does chastise us precisely because He loves us.”

I reply: We need to understand what “chastise” means. I means that God cleans us of our sins. His “chastising” has nothing to do with sending suffering or punishments to us. It has to do with drawing himself to us.

You said: Moreover, the passage you cite references Purgatory as a means of administering temporal punishment for sin. One cannot take God out of the picture of Purgatory (it is his gift to us), and, therefore, one cannot exclude God from the picture of punishment for s

I reply: Purgatory is a type of “temporal punishment” or more accurately temporal suffering. But the expression applies to all temporary suffering as you said in your first post. But the pains in purgatory are not from God, but follow from the very nature of sin. Purgatory is a gift because it is God drawing him to us.

You said: “But, the thing to be emphasized (which I do in my critique of the HOF), is this: in no way is God’s chastisement / punishment of his children an expression of vengeance. Rather, it is an expression of love.”

I reply: The horrors of the world suddehnly become loving acts of God? So cancer is good as long as God sends it? Earthquakes that kill 2 million are loving acts of God? When God commands (he doesn’t in actuality) his people to slaughter whole races it is a good thing? I for one know the Nazi’s did the same thing and that it was one of the worst things ever in the history of mankind.

Would you send a chastisement to kill thousands of people? I know I wouldn’t and God is at least as good as I am. It is extremely important for mankind to know that God is actually good. God is total self-gift. In gift it doesn’t involve hurting one another to change one’s action. It involves giving oneself totally for another. Suffering and death are precisely why God is angry at sin. Because it hurts us. Look at Jesus and see what he did and taught. He never once said “you need to suffer”. And when they crucified him he said “Forgive them for they do not know what they do.” In God there is no hatred and only love. God is offended at sin but he is only offended for us. Not at us.
 
I attended a seminar by Fr. Ssemakula last year at San Antonio , Texas. I was plagued by unnecessary suffering the kind that persisted inspite of prayers, novenas and everything a good Catholic does when he or she wants relief. I was at the point of desperation because this wasn’t ordinary suffering something that I felt like I could offer up and stay joyful. It was eating away at my spiritual life and eroding my relationship with God. I was fast losing hope and this trouble didn’t just stop with me , it was harassing my children. In short, they were Satanic . I bought Fr. Ssemakulas book and said some of the deliverance prayers at home. The problems stopped for about a month and then resumed. I finally decided to make the long drive to San Antonio with my teenage son. I attended the retreat. Father spoke from morning to night explaining the reason for certain kind of suffering that didn’t bring joy , rather which sucked out one’s spiritual life and good relationship with God. He explained the way Satan gets into the family tree and stays hidden. All of which is clearly explained in his book and better explained at the seminar. It was exactly my situation. He is a good Roman Catholic priest who never once told us to stop what we were doing. He asked us to please keep up going to Mass, saying those Rosaries but he showed us a way of praying to get out of family bondage alongwith our Catholic prayers.
This priest stood at the podium from morning to night speaking for us who were there desperate for help, seeking his help (for me a last resort). He spoke words of encouragement explaining very clearly how to clear bondage by this form of prayer. While we, the people went on multiple breaks for snacks, lunch or dinner, I did not see Father Ssemakula enjoy any of the food there! He just sipped from a water bottle. Even during the breaks people flooded toward him with their problems. Yet, he stayed cheerful and determined to help us all. I do not argue on points of Theology. I just know that he has helped me and my family and I am forever grateful. I am now free of a burden that allows me to say my Rosary with joy and see meaning in every Mass I go to. My full undying support and gratitude to Fr. Yozefu Ssemakula!! God bless him
 
I think it is important to note that neither I, nor (to my knowledge) anyone else in this discussion, question Fr. Yozefu’s sincerity or devotion. Nor do we doubt that some have found relief and healing through his book and seminars. None of that, however, erases the fact that his teachings contain errors that cannot be harmonized with the Catholic faith. Nor does it alter the fact that his book was denied an imprimatur precisely because it contains doctrinal errors.
God can, and does, reach out to us where we are at. Those who go to the seminars and experience healing receive such because of their openness to God’s working in their lives. It does not, however, constitute a divine endorsement of everything that Fr. Yozefu teaches. Many people, for example, receive healing through various Protestant charismatic meetings. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit is endorsing their rejection of the Catholic faith? No. Again, it is because God can, and often does, reach out to us where we are at. So, again, healings can be experienced at less-then-perfect venues.
In the case of Fr. Yozefu, it is not sufficient to sweep the errors under the rug simply because some people are experiencing good results. Theological errors have deep repercussions that affect souls. The errors taught by Fr. Yozefu are the antithesis of the Church’s constant teaching on sickness, suffering, and salvation. I will not elaborate on them here because they are outlined in my critique (see previous posts for a link to the dropbox document). Moreover, there are people who have had literally hellish experiences as a result of trying to embrace what is taught by Fr. Yozefu.
So, again, no one–to my knowledge–is questioning Fr. Yozefu’s intentions, devotion, etc. However, it is not wise to simply brush the errors aside because some people have had “good results”.

Peace,

Bruce Sullivan

p.s.

As some may already know, the Fathers of Mercy have also come out with an official statement outlining the errors they found in Fr. Yozefu’s book and seminars. This is significant not just because of the respect they deservedly command in the Church, but because one of their own priests had been trained by Fr. Yozefu and was using his methodology before recognizing the problems inherent therein. Here is a link to their statement.

fathersofmercy.com/events/official-statement-fathers-mercy-healing-families/
 
With all due respect to the priests (Fathers of Mercy) it was not them but Fr. Ssemakula who rescued me and several others from hellish experiences. God bless Fr. Yozefu Ssemakula.
 
You seem to be missing the points I was trying to make:
  1. Any healing you (or anyone else) have received is from God (not Fr. Yozefu)
  2. Healings per se do not constitute a divine endorsement of everything someone teaches (as can be seen in the healings that come through the Protestant charismatic movement despite its doctrinal errors).
  3. Fr. Yozefu’s book DOES in fact contain doctrinal errors (which is why he was denied an imprimatur in the first place).
  4. Doctrinal errors should not be sloughed off easily as if they are of no consequence.
  5. It was through trying to embrace and internalize all of what Fr. Yozefu teaches that I–and others whom I know–had nothing less than hellish experiences.
In all honesty–and with no disrespect intended–it appears to me that you have not gone deeply enough into what Fr. Yozefu teaches to grasp its full implications. Have you been helped? Yes. That, however, should not cause you to close your eyes to the serious errors found in Fr. Yozefu’s book.

Peace,

Bruce
 
For clarification: I, too, pray for God to bless Fr. Yozefu. I really do. One way that God can bless him is through correction of the errors he presently teaches.

I have no desire to see Fr. Yozefu “thrown under the bus”. He may very well have a charism of healing. If that is the case, though, it needs to be exercised in a manner consistent with Church teaching.

It is my prayer that through this process, Fr. Yozefu’s ministry will come to reflect the Church’s authentic teaching on sickness, suffering, and salvation. Presently, however, what he presents is seriously distorted.
 
Of course I know that the healing comes from God through Fr. Yozefu His priest. I’m a cradle Catholic and if I sensed that there were any Protestant errors in Fathers talks at the seminar I would have walked right out the door. But there wasnt. I have read the book and dont sense anything wrong there too except perhaps some grammatical corrections. He may have wanted to convey something that could be misunderstood.
 
I’ve read the book and found it to be very helpful in getting me to reflect on sin in my family as well as praying against satans influence. I could feel the difference in my life from this book and I know that I was meant to do some healing as it came to me through this book.

However, I did find it to be suspect in terms of theology. And I’m gonna agree with Bruce, that it’s not sound doctrine at all.
 
By way of an update.

In August of 2014, Bishop Parkes of the Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee (Fr. Yozefu’s bishop) issued a statement regarding Fr. Yozefu’s book, The Healing of Families. In that statement, Bishop Parkes indicated that he was having the Censor Librorum of the diocese (Fr. Hector Perez, STD) examine Fr. Yozefu’s writings in order to see if an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat could be issued for the book.

One year later, in August of 2015, Bishop Parkes issued an updated statement. Therein, he stated that, upon examination, Fr. Yozefu’s book, The Healing of Families, could NOT be given the canonical designations (i.e. approvals) requested by Fr. Yozefu.

In other words, the book contains errors that are serious enough in nature that Fr. Yozefu’s bishop cannot grant it canonical approval unless it undergoes significant revision.

You can read the statement using this link.

ptdiocese.org/documents/2015/8/Updated%20Statement%20on%20Ssemakula.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top