• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Sherri on Ask a Priest
    Chris on A Priest’s Personal…
    Henry Herdzik on Ask a Priest
    Mike on A Priest’s Personal…
    Randall on QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Pope Francis Presents a Rosary to Mary


I took this picture at the end of the canonization Mass at the Shrine last week. Pope Francis is presenting a rosary to a statue of the Blessed Mother. I had a good seat with the other priests but got a mean sunburn for the effort. Nevertheless, the weather was pleasant.

The Pope Meets Patrick & Philip Jenkins

This is my current screen saver on my computer. It is a video grab photo of my nephews Patrick and Philip (the two African-American boys) having a close encounter with Pope Francis at the US Nunciature.  Both were touched, blessed and one got his head rubbed!  It was carried on ABC News and on C-SPAN. 12034215_10153197439093435_4606405033964439681_o

A Priest’s Personal Blog

Recently a bigot and dissenter argued that priests like me had no right to share our views.  He would silence our voices on blogs, Facebook, twitter… what have you.  The critic sought to use our conservatism and orthodoxy against us.  He argued that unless a priest’s blog was promoted on the diocesan website or endorsed by the bishop, then he had no right to communicate on the Internet.  The only exception he would allow was if the priest denied his priesthood and title.  That, of course, is ridiculous.  That would force us to reject our presbyteral identity.

It is enough to say that this is a PERSONAL Blog that is neither directly associated with nor endorsed by my parish or the Archdiocese. However, it is a fulfillment of a papal command from Pope Benedict XVI to priests on January 24, 2010:

The spread of multimedia communications and its rich ‘menu of options’ might make us think it sufficient simply to be present on the Web, or to see it only as a space to be filled. Yet priests can rightly be expected to be present in the world of digital communications as faithful witnesses to the Gospel, exercising their proper role as leaders of communities which increasingly express themselves with the different ‘voices’ provided by the digital marketplace. Priests are thus challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources (images, videos, animated features, blogs, websites) which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelization and catechesis.

LINK:  Does a parish priest have time to blog?

LINK:  List of Clergy Blogs


Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

§2. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms concerning the requirements for clerics and members of religious institutes to take part on radio or television in dealing with questions of Catholic doctrine or morals.

General guidelines vary from one diocese to the next. For instance, in the Archdiocese of Washington a priest is required to get permission before giving public interviews on television or radio.  The new social media is a separate matter and the Church has opted for freedom so that the voice of the Gospel will be heard and not overwhelmed.  Every priest in good standing is an apostle and evangelizer.  This electronic forum is one of his instruments in the NEW EVANGELIZATION.

Just as parish bulletins with weekly messages are posted online by pastors, many priests blog and use social networking to communicate with family, friends, parishioners and others. There was some speculation a few years ago that new legislation would shut down priest-bloggers, particularly because a few proved an embarrassment. However, Pope Benedict XVI made his statement to ensure the continued clerical (orthodox) voice in the new public forum.

I am proud to say that I was one of the first priests in the nation on the World Wide Web. I established a parish web page in the mid-1990s. While blogging sites did not exist, I ran several informative personal websites (mostly defunct now) and the old message boards. Years later when the Archdiocese decided to ramp up its web presence and to add blogs, a priest friend called me to let me know first. Little did I know that my pattern of blogging, if not my poor or silly messages, would become a model for others. Today I still blog, but not every day. I am also increasing restrained by charity and an abiding respect for others (even when I disagree with them). In a sense I have stepped back for clerics and others who are far better than I am at communicating the things that matter.

Who is my favorite priest blogger in the Archdiocese? I am divided but can list these as the ones I regularly read and have the most intense respect:

Father Scott Hurd

Father Kevin Cusick

Msgr. Charles Pope

Donald Cardinal Wuerl

Synod of the Family: Revisionist Proposals, part 2


Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna echoes a few points that will no doubt be discussed at the upcoming Synod on the Family.  (No disrespect is intended to this brilliant man who was the secretary that helped assemble the universal catechism.)

A stable gay relationship is “an improvement” over temporary relationships.

This position reminds me of what my old professor taught at CUA many years ago. It was wrongly argued that Fr. Charles Curran supported the promiscuous lifestyle that was lived out by so many homosexuals. In fact, he only argued, (while still wrongly), that the Church should support homosexuals who lived out faithful monogamous relationships. The difficulties I saw were the twofold condemnations from both natural law and divine positive law. There is no Scriptural qualification that same-sex behavior is okay if not promiscuous. Today, no matter what label we might impose upon it, we have no authority to change reality or what actually constitutes marriage. How then is a stable relationship better? Is it better concealed? Does it inhibit the transfer of deadly viruses? Is there a value in how it mimics heterosexual bonds? Spiritually, I am concerned about the forgiveness of sins and saving souls. Given that homosexual acts constitute the matter of mortal sin, is one not damned with either one partner or dozens of partners? Jumping from one ledge to another on a mountainside might make an appropriate analogy. One might miss the ledge by five feet or one inch, but the resulting fall is the same. Where is the improvement?

Sharing a life, “they share their joys and sufferings, they help one another. They took an important step for their own good and the good of others, even though it certainly is an “irregular” situation in the Church’s eyes.

The irregularity is not simply in the eyes of the Church. This makes the situation sound like it can be corrected with the quick change of an ecclesial rule or guideline. The problem is too deep for such a shallow response.

A shared life might precipitate a degree of needed solidarity and intimacy, but is that enough? I remember a college reporting to alumni that they had a very loving and supportive community. However, this did not dispel fears that the school had lost its Catholic identity. The ancient pagans had instances of wonderful comradery and unity; however, this affiliation was not Christian. Are we not facing a similar situation here?

I have known homosexuals who struggled with their sexuality and were discrete about their disorientation. They regularly went to Confession and those with partners tried earnestly to make the walk of faith with their special friend. Sometimes they failed. But they respected the teachings of the Church and loved the Lord. I knew men and women who took care of their beloved friend even as he or she was dying from diseases like AIDs or cancer. They lamented militants spitting the host into the face of churchmen like the late Cardinal O’Connor in New York. They retreated with disgust from vulgar exhibitions in rallies and parades. They were faithful to love while knowing that there was something broken in their attractions and genital life. Many joined Fr. John Harvey’s COURAGE and sought to share love in celibate service to others and in prayer to God. I lament that we seem to pamper those who demand approbation while neglecting these heroic men and women.

While a negative verdict from the Church about homosexual acts remains, “the Church should not look in the bedroom first, but in the dining room! It must accompany people.”

The negative verdict arises from the sources of revelation. How should one surmount a consistent teaching from both the Old and New Testaments that later finds confirmation in two thousand years of Christian tradition? Until recently, homosexual acts were criminalized in many places. This assertion about accompanying people sounds nice, but are we all walking in the same direction? I would not want to go to hell with other sinners just to appease the niceties of toleration and good manners.  Would the good Cardinal make the same argument if we were discussing polygamy and mistresses? What about those who promote promiscuity, prostitution and orgies? What about the practitioners of bestiality, pedophilia and pederasty? No, I suspect then he would want to put his foot down. I am left wondering.  Could it be that some churchmen just do not believe that homosexuality is all that serious a sin? Our Lord’s house or mansion has many rooms; what we do matters in all the rooms of his house!  No one should be excused from the need for contrition and repentance. Do we really want to throw away this vital component to heralding the Gospel and transformation in Christ?

Pastoral accompaniment “cannot transform an irregular situation into a regular one, but there do exist paths for healing, for learning.”

This leaves me befuddled. He says the irregular situation remains but there are “paths for healing, for learning.” What does this mean? How will making them comfortable with error bring them to the truth?  Or is he addressing the Church?  Is the Church supposed to learn that we were mistaken about a basic issue of human sexuality? Is it wrong to expect the homosexual or lesbian to embrace a non-genital way of loving? Are not our ears being bombarded by the same deviant sex advocates who are demanding acceptance and approval, not just toleration? When asked about the issue, Pope Francis responded, “Who am I to judge?” What he meant was that only God can judge the individual soul. However, as the Vicar of Christ, he can affirm (as he did recently) what is viewed as right and wrong by our Lord and his Church. As sinners, we all need to grow in the truth and to experience genuine forgiveness and healing.

Synod of the Family: Revisionist Proposals, part 1


Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna echoes a few points that will no doubt be discussed at the upcoming Synod on the Family.  (No disrespect is intended to this brilliant man who was the secretary that helped assemble the universal catechism.)  Here is one of the controversial points:

A civil marriage is better than cohabitation because it signifies “a formal public commitment.”

I am not sure about this statement.  Both, in my estimation, are bad.  Might we say that one is worse than the other?  And which is worse?  Cohabitation might leave emotional strings, but after a breakup there would be no civil or ecclesial ties to unravel.  The good cardinal seems to think that people are thrown together chiefly because of financial worries; I suspect he is too quick to dismiss the carnal elements and the attitude that “living together” constitutes either a trial marriage or a viable alternative.  He asserts that civil marriages are better, but for the Catholic, what is it really?  Sure, the state would recognize the bond.  Two Protestants or non-believers married in such a way would be truly married, even if only in terms of a natural bond.  However, the Catholic has turned his back on marriage as a sacrament of the Church.  Indeed, in this age of same-sex marriages, we would not even define marriage as does our secular culture.  The bond is not recognized by the Church and thus has no standing before almighty God.  If the marriage fails, a quick declaration of nullity because of lack of canonical form proves this point.  The bond is not worth the paper it is written upon.  Their sexual congress still constitutes fornication and if there were a prior bond, adultery.  How is this good or better?  Will the Church now seek a demarcation within mortal sin?  If the soul is darkened or dead, the persons are no longer disposed to saving grace.  The role of the Church is not simply to help people feel happy or whole but to give them true mercy and joy in the Spirit.  Our mission is to save souls, not to pamper people who have turned their backs on the Church, her sacraments and basic values.  It may be too harshly said, but where Catholics are involved, civil marriages are to cohabitation what Nevada houses of ill repute are to prostitution.  It might give the profession a certain public recognition and standing, but it is no less damning.

Here is another point listed by the cardinal:

“Instead of talking about everything that is missing, we can draw close to this reality, noting what is positive in this love that is establishing itself.”

The good cardinal applies this, not only to cohabitation and civil unions, but also to second unions and same-sex unions.  I will neglect the last possibility in this reflection because I think there is sufficient cause already to reject the assertion for heterosexuals.  That which is missing is paramount and ignoring or excusing its absence leads to a false analysis of the problem.  The fact remains that sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral and sinful.  Marriage is an institution to foster both spousal fidelity and the propagation of the species.  If you are not married, then you have no right to these goods, even if they are feigned.  What do I mean by feigned?  Pretending to be husband and wife does not make one husband and wife.  Similarly, even in marriages, the marital act is what it is.  If distorted by violence or lust, it becomes a parody.  If couples are made sterile through contraception then the basic meaning of the marital act is short-changed and it no longer signifies the bond or renews the marital covenant.  Let me attempt a silly analogy.  A cowboy facing bandits will be thankful for his gun.  However, he will be intensely disappointed when the fighting starts to find that he has no bullets.  Again, that which is missing can be crucial to any scenario.

This notion of finding the positive in sin or wrongful relationships can lead to a distortion in values.  We can say that such tolerance will not affect doctrine, but this has not yet been proven.  Usually the praxis or discipline is imposed to insure a doctrinal teaching.  Certainly I can appreciate compassion and mercy.  We might also admit that certain relationships will take time to correct and heal.  But the problem that many refuse to acknowledge is that there are some relationships and actions that can never be made right.  If a person is married in truth, a second union is adultery— yes, no matter how satisfying and loving is the irregular union.  Living together and sharing sexual congress outside of marriage is not only wrong, it is the cooperation in another’s sin or a spiritual exploitation.  Many couples acknowledge that they cohabitate because this makes sexual activity more convenient.  Is this the positive element we are seeking?  No!  Civil unions provide little extra in terms of foundational substance, especially when there is “no fault” divorce and half of such unions fail.  Couples might say they grew apart, but increasingly the unstated cause of marital breakup is adultery.  Would not kindness to adulterers be demeaning to spouses who struggle to maintain fidelity?

If we look hard enough, we might imagine something positive in the most tragic of situations.  Indeed, I was asked one time about this in regard to hell.  My response was that it was unlikely the devils would find fulfillment in simply torturing damned souls for all eternity.  I suspect that if there be one positive element it might be the intellectual life.  The demons have incredible intellects, albeit without divine illumination.  As creatures without bodies there would be nothing that corporeal pleasure could offer them.  They would probably seek an escape into their minds.  Of course, no matter how high calipered the debates, hell would still be hell.

The love of fornicators and adulterers might be very tender and gentle.  It might be incredibly affirming and life-giving.  The problem is both what is missing and what is supplied instead.  The sacrament is absent and that which should sanctify them brings scandal and grievous sin.  Their union is built upon a foundation of broken promises and a basic deception.  They give what belongs to another.  They give what they have no right to give.  Like a thief, they steal what does not belong to them.

This proposition collapses entirely with a proper definition of love.  Love is ever so much more than feelings.  Love is sacrificial.  Love is a promise kept.  Love is consecrated by God and such lasts a lifetime.

Increasing numbers cohabitate because of financial insecurity.  The bishops should ask, “Are we here to deplore this phenomenon instead of asking ourselves what has changed?”

It is true that there are financial issues that drive couples to live together, although formerly men and women took housemates of the same gender to share a home. Are they less likely to do so today because others will suppose they are gay when they are really straight? I think too great an emphasis is placed on economics as an excuse or rationale for what is happening. In truth, I think there has been an erosion of the meaning and importance of marriage. Many times I have heard young people, particularly those estranged from the Church, say that marriage is “just a slip of paper.” Boys and girls living together do so largely for what the good cardinal might demote as mere fringe benefits. It makes sexual intimacy easier. When young people start spending time with each other their friends will invariably ask, “When are you going to move in together?” A situation that was once judged as scandalous is now judged as routine or expected.

The good cardinal poses “either-or” questions when there should be a two-fold focus.  We are talking about more than living together or cohabitation, but rather about variations of sexual concubinage. The bishops by necessity should “deplore this phenomenon.” Nothing should deflect their disdain. Too often I hear the complaint that we should not shame the girl or couple, especially if they should conceive an illegitimate child. While the Church is pro-life and the baby is innocent; the parents are not. They should be ashamed of themselves, and this goes back to their living arrangements. These are situations where the rights of children are not properly served and there is a heightened likelihood of abortion. The Church’s moral outrage immediately focuses upon what has changed— a lack of shame and a diminution in the meaning of marriage. Of course, then the Church is attacked as intolerant and mean-spirited. We hear echoed a rhetorical question that emanates from those who have no respect for the Church or her authority, “Who are you to judge?” This repudiation of ecclesial moral assessment is then backed up with a listing of all the latest scandals in the Church, particularly regarding pedophilia and pederasty. By comparison, the Church is imaged as the biggest sinner and a hypocrite as well. Critics say we are looking for splinters while we have planks jabbed in our eyes. Unfortunately, objective truth and genuine moral scrutiny is the victim of this back-and-forth. Right and wrong remain what they are even if the one who cites the misdeed is the greatest reprobate on the planet.

Are we really being helpful?  “There is a risk of easily pointing a finger at hedonism and individualism, when it takes much more effort to observe the realities carefully.”

It may be that the good cardinal is critical of the bishops and the Church for making abstract moral judgments without a regard for how the practical situations of people make difficult any fidelity to the divine moral law.  However, the place for pastoral accommodation is in the Confessional, not in general statements of faith.  There has to be a universal standard.  The Church teaches us what ought to be.  The priest in the trenches deals in a proximate way with what is and the effects of original sin.  Saint John Paul II understood this.  He was concise and clear about questions in the moral order.  His theology of the body was the mastery of his genius.  And yet, this same Pope urged priests to show gentleness and compassion to penitents who struggled with the sin of artificial contraception and the manner of their sexual intimacy.  He urged ministers to take people where they found them.  Jesus ministered similarly.  He brought healing and forgiveness to others but nothing of the Decalogue lost its compelling power.  Indeed, some commands became more intense.  The mere hatred of another makes one guilty of violating, “thou shalt not kill.”  The woman caught in adultery is guilty but he saves her from stoning and opts himself not to condemn her.  Rather he forgives her with a warning to avoid this sin in the future.  The writ of divorce is dismissed and those who do so are charged with adultery.  This sounds harsh but it protected the rights of women who were often abandoned and left destitute.

Each case may have complications that surface.  But one would have to be blind not to see how our society is saturated by hedonism.  The natural desire for happiness and the avoidance of pain is amplified to the level where the pursuit of pleasure becomes everything.  While much of the planet suffers squalor and poverty, Western society is enraptured by self-indulgence.  Alcohol, drugs, sexual promiscuity, pornography, and lurid entertainments saturate our environment.  Keeping the proper custody of the eyes becomes virtually impossible.  Everyone from the elderly to the small child is touched by it.

A stark individualism is often praised in American circles and yet while we delight in freedom, often this can come at the price of another’s rights and the cohesion of duty or obligation for family, for community, and for church.  The slogan for the mentality, at least when it becomes terminal, is the cry, “No one can tell me what to do!”

Three Random Questions


Three questions please:

1) May a Priest attend services at, say, a Baptist Church?


Yes, but he cannot take an active part in the order of service.  With permission of the bishop, he might be permitted to preach at a special service.  However, such invitations are highly unlikely.


2) If so, would it be acceptable for him to do so wearing his cassock?


Yes, he would be expected to identify himself by his clerical garb.


3) I know a priest who rarely wears that “beanie” cap as it frequently falls off, is this acceptable? If not, how do you keep it on?


Most priests these days do not wear the black zucchetto and it is not worn with a suit.  Worn with the cassock or other vestments, it sits under the biretta.

Clarfication on Intercessory Prayer & Salvation

Praying to Mary
Intercession of Mary & the Saints
How is Praying to a Saint NOT Like Praying to God?

BUIMIRA:  Here is a crucial point which should be clearly understood. With respect to the older posts, if we have a good relation with Jesus, and pray ONLY to Christ, and not to any saint, angel, or even to Mary, then we can count ourselves still confidently saved! This is the point that you missed, or did not make it clear. You shouldn’t have missed it in your articles.

FATHER JOE:  No, this is not Catholic teaching. While all prayer is directed to almighty God, we do invoke Mary, the angels and the saints to assist us and to intercede before God. This is reflective of a “corporate” relationship we have with each other and God. Certain Protestant sects wrongly privatize or overly personalize faith. We are called to both a personal and communal relationship with the Lord. As for being saved, Catholics do not subscribe to the Protestant understanding of Blessed Assurance which flows from a rigorist Lutheran view of justification by faith. Such relies upon a notion of juridical imputation while Catholicism insists upon being born again as a new creation. While there is life, we can abide in the sure and certain hope of our salvation. The problem is that genuine faith can sour. We pray that we will faithful endure until the race is over. This is different from the presumption which you seem to espouse.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 321 other followers