September | 2006 | Blogger Priest

Celibacy, Married Priests & Vocations

Posted on September 30, 2006 by Father Joe

This is the fifth post in an extended discussion about married priests and the breakaway group founded by Archbishop Milingo.

MATTHEW

Part of the answer to the problem of low response to vocations is to improve the Church’s approach to advertising the “product.” You get more potential buyers with an effective ad campaign. It has been my experience that the Church doesn’t advertise for candidates in an effective manner.

FATHER JOE

There are many programs for vocations that would seem to agree with you. However, I suspect the fads they follow to recruit men will only have short-lived results. The real answer is happy and holy priests. The scandals have hurt morale, not to mention the widespread dissent that exists even in Catholic families. Families need to have children and they should encourage them to be priests and nuns. Priests must be men committed to prayer, worship and service. Celibacy is a wonderful way to embrace this calling and it has given the Roman Catholic priest of the West a special charism as a man single-heartedly in love with God. Celibacy is a plus, not a deficit in the equation.

MATTHEW

Not enough positive encouragement is given to young people who are at the point of selecting a career to opt for a consecrated life.

FATHER JOE

This is true, and yet when they see others mock or disrespect priests, it is no wonder that they might also become cynical or close the door to such a vocation as priesthood or consecrated life. There are also way too many rascals in the ranks.

Note also that the priesthood is not simply a CAREER; it is a way of life. All day, each day, everywhere he goes– the priest is a priest!

MATTHEW

When was the last time you went to a high school career night (other than at a Catholic high school) to encourage young men to take up the challenge? When was the last time your bishop went on such a mission? This is a mission activity and it looks like one that is invisible to the hierarchy. Remember, not all committed Catholics attend Catholic schools.

FATHER JOE

You are very presumptuous. I am the product of public schools and know well the challenges of outreach to the community outside the parochial system. However, sometimes there is active resistance to allowing priests and religious a forum in the context you mention.

MATTHEW

I know that I applied to the seminary when I was young, but for no given reason they wouldn’t take me.

FATHER JOE

I cannot say why they did not take you. Did you try somewhere else? Were the problems in the psychological screening? Did you have the proper recommendations? Did you show respect to the Church and the clear capacity for obedience? Were you committed to celibacy? But in any case, the priesthood is not for everyone. I have some close friends who studied to be priests but for one reason or another, did not complete the formation. We may think we have a calling, but that vocation must be confirmed by the Church herself— another form of regulation.

Sometimes this regulation fails, either because of incompetence in those placed over seminarians or because the candidates themselves conceal serious problems or reservations that later explode.

MATTHEW

I also know a number of men who attended seminary because they wanted to be priests and dropped out because they didn’t feel called to celibacy.

FATHER JOE

It is a good reason to drop out. Celibacy is a terrible and a wonderful sacrifice. Compared to other men, it makes the priest the “poor” man, unfulfilled in the ways that the world considers important. Nevertheless, celibacy is a great treasure and a hallmark of the priesthood in the West. I am not threatened by a few married clergy. However, I would grieve if this wonderful gift that God bestows his priests was minimized or dismissed as accidental or inconsequential. You might see it that way, but most celibate priests do not. The majority of priests I know in ministry would oppose a change in the discipline, so would I.

MATTHEW

According to Catholic theology one charism can exist independent of any other.

FATHER JOE

Yes, charisms can be distinct but they are rarely if ever independent. They flow one into the other. Such is the case with a celibate priesthood.

MATTHEW

Why do we insist that God triple the charism of priesthood with celibacy and masculinity?

FATHER JOE

I am a faithful Roman Catholic priest. That is why I take these views. I believe that what the Magisterium teaches must be believed. Further, speaking for myself personally, that violation of this trust would bring me disgrace as a priest and forfeit my immortal soul.

The priest must be a man. Christ did not select women to be among the twelve and his example has been followed for two thousand years. He has not told us that we could do otherwise. Gender is not an accidental but has core meaning to our identity and importance for the priest in regard to the incarnation. The priest is a living icon for Christ who functions at the altar as “alterchristus” acting “in the person of Christ, head of the Church.” The priest is Christ, the bridegroom of the Church which is his bride.
The discipline of celibacy, while not intrinsically necessary for the priesthood, certainly has roots in the practice of the ancient Jews, the early Church, the life of Jesus and the witness of St. Paul and others. It is a beautiful way to make a priest a sign of contradiction to the world, a man who offers not only cultic oblation but the sacrifice of his own flesh for the good of the Church.
The priesthood is God’s great gift to the Church. It makes possible the re-presentation of Calvary on our altars, Holy Communion, the absolution of sins, and so much more. It is not a gift that one can merit or for which one is entitled as upon a social justice agenda. No one is worthy of it and yet all of us, on both sides of the sanctuary, benefit from it.

MATTHEW

As you admit these are arbitrary disciplines of Rome. They are not mandated by divine scripture or tradition. Get a better ad campaign. You might surprise yourself.

FATHER JOE

Did I say arbitrary?

Celibacy is a discipline, but it is a long-standing practice that has colored our understanding of the priesthood. The priest belongs to the Church. This is the family that receives his first loyalty and all his time and strength. There should be no competition.

As for the all-male priesthood, it is a matter of unchangeable doctrine. Women cannot be priests and their so-called Eucharist is invalid! The marriage analogy at the altar is distorted by priestesses into a perverse sacramental lesbianism.

The Scriptures and Sacred Tradition lend much support to the current Roman Catholic position. Revisionists pretend otherwise and do not have the high ground.

If all you want are better sales gimmicks then maybe you would prefer one of the breakaway churches? But I hope not, because I am convinced they will incur almighty God’s terrible judgment for harming the mystical body of Christ.

God bless and keep you.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | 1 Comment »

The Church’s Right to Regulate Her Sacraments

Posted on September 29, 2006 by Father Joe

This is the fourth post in a discussion about the married priests movement. This post deals with the authority of the Church to regulate her sacraments.

FATHER JOE

These comments about the sacraments initially came under a post about excommunicated clerics and a breakaway church. I asked the critic, “Have you left the Church?” Certainly, a view that dislodges the sacraments from the charge of the Church implies a movement toward the schismatic and/or Protestant confessions.

MATTHEW

You wrote, “The teaching and governing Church has every right to regulate her sacraments as she see fit.”

Not really, Father. She has, rather, the obligation to administer the sacraments in a fashion consistent with the call to mercy so often issued by Jesus. “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” And again, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” Paul refused to ordain a man to the office of bishop unless he was a married man. He insisted on proof of maturity and the ability to raise a family. I’m not sure that we have anything that works as consistently as that to weed out unsuitable candidates.

Remember that the sacraments are gifts of grace poured out on the unworthy. You don’t regulate gifts. I know that God certainly doesn’t.

FATHER JOE

Sorry, but you are wrong. God does indeed regulate the sacraments, but through the instrumentality and secondary causality of the Church. Certainly, the Church has been given a great charge from Christ, but the statement about the regulation of the sacraments is not my private notion but the long-standing teaching of the faith.

Even history bears this out in such things as the evolution or development of the sacrament of penance [baptism for the remission of sins / second penance / petitioning the living martyrs who survived persecution / repeated auricular confession]. The keys are given to Peter and the Church, he and the Church can loosen and can bind.

The Church can say who can and cannot receive Holy Communion. The Church can require that only men, 25 years of age and older are ordained. The Church can add disciplines like celibacy to the vocation. The Church can mandate a priest or deacon as a witness to marriages. The Church can regulate by faculties what a priest can and cannot do— preach, offer Mass, hear confessions, etc. The Church can set requirements for baptism, particularly the faith and practice of candidates or that of the children’s parents. The bishop can offer confirmation or delegate this to a priest. These are only a few of the many instances of sacramental regulation.

Yes, sacraments bring God’s mercy to men, but it is through the vehicle of the Church and her faith and ministers.

Canon Law, Book 4 spells out various norms and regulations associated with the Church’s sacraments. Non-Catholic and breakaway communities might take from the Church facets of the faith and sacraments, but these elements properly belong to the Catholic Church (the faith community established directly by Jesus as the new People of God).

The universal catechism confirms what I say:

[CCC 1117] As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, THE CHURCH, by the power of the Spirit who guides her “into all truth,” has GRADUALLY RECOGNIZED this treasure received from Christ and, as the FAITHFUL STEWARD OF GOD’S MYSTERIES, has DETERMINED ITS “DISPENSATION.” Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.

[CCC 1118] The sacraments are “OF THE CHURCH” in the DOUBLE SENSE that they are “BY HER” and “FOR HER.” They are “by the Church,” for she is the sacrament of Christ’s action at work in her through the mission of the Holy Spirit. They are “for the Church” in the sense that “the sacraments make the Church,” since they manifest and communicate to men, above all in the Eucharist, the mystery of communion with the God who is love, One in three persons.

Even some of the sacramental guidelines we find in St. Paul (regarding qualifications for bishops, women silent in churches, and his participation in the Council of Jerusalem in the baptism/circumcision debate) were simply the disciplines of the Church current at that time. The Sabbath itself, which you mention, was modified by the Church. The Hebrew Sabbath was moved to Sunday, not because of any utterance from Christ, but by the early regulation of the Church which celebrated the Lord’s resurrection and his Eucharist on Sunday morning.

There are assuredly certain givens about the sacraments granted us by God and distributed by the Church, having to do with their institution and purpose. The Church takes that into consideration but regulates the sacraments nonetheless. I have already given ample examples. But to help you I will offer the quick instance of Holy Communion. The priest might legitimately give you and the community the host alone or he might also give you the cup. Either way, you receive the complete Christ. That decision about distribution, just like receiving in the hand or on the tongue, standing or kneeling, etc. is a form of sacramental regulation.

Are we talking at cross-purposes? You contend that sacraments by their very nature as gifts are freely given and thus cannot be regulated. Well, indeed, the sacraments are gifts given to the Church, but not everyone is entitled to them. Non-Catholics and those outside the Church are not invited to receive Holy Communion or generally any of the sacraments. People who are not properly disposed are not welcome to receive the sacraments, either.

Since the sacraments are Christ’s gifts to the Church, and not per se to us as individuals, the Church has the authority to regulate them— giving them to some and withholding them from others.

MICHAEL

Grace in whatever guise is a gift. All grace is without regulation. The only problem is what use the recipient makes of the gift. This is certainly in accordance with Catholic theology.

FATHER JOE

Yes, grace is always a gift, but not all grace comes solely with the sacraments. Even the movement toward faith and conversion is only possible through divine grace. The sacraments make possible our reception of both actual and sanctifying grace. However, since some graces are reserved to the life of the Church, as for instance with those associated with sacraments and indulgences, they can be regulated. Some graces are gifts both from God and in a secondary way from the administration of Mother Church. So you are wrong again, and increasing Protestant in your perspective. Martin Luther objected to the notion that the Church could make certain graces available in indulgences from the divine treasury of grace that comes from God through the meritorious work and lives of the saints. Further, prayer for the poor souls in purgatory is another case where the Church seeks grace for those souls who are helpless and in need of help regarding the residual temporal punishment due to sin and cleansing from the last vestiges of venial sin, sinful habits or disposition.

The Church can regulate sacraments but sacraments cannot be distorted beyond the boundaries of institution (for example you cannot use pretzels and beer for Holy Communion). Neither can a bishop ordain women as priests!
The disposition of a person, faithless, in mortal sin, etc. can make it a sacrilege to receive a sacrament and render it impossible to merit grace.
While there are graces that one might receive outside the Church, like the gift of conversion, such graces draw people into a greater unity with the Church and Christ’s kingdom.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

Repudiation of MARRIED PRIESTS NOW!

Posted on September 28, 2006 by Father Joe

This is the third post in a discussion about Archbishop Milingo and the disobedient married priests movement.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Dear Father Joe, if that’s who you really are. It would be nice if you had some facts before you give your over the top comments about everyone else’s life. Not that the truth will deter you. I was already married and was a father before I was ordained. So your accusation of breaking vows is rubbish. You may enjoy Archbishop Milingo’s response to the Dicastery Meeting.

The prelature for Married Priests Now! concurs with the Holy Father and the Vatican finding that reaffirms celibacy. As prelature spokesman, I can say that where we disagree is in the enforcement of celibacy as a job requirement for the priesthood. Celibacy should be a freely chosen charism and not a job requirement. Not every priest has the charism to be celibate and this is the problem because the church forces it on him or he cannot be ordained. It is an unjust requirement that violates human freedom.

FATHER JOE

I may only be a poor lowly priest in the Catholic Church, but James Cardinal Hickey who ordained me was an archbishop of the true Church in good standing. I have no reason to doubt my holy orders and unlike you have no need to seek ordination again and again from other sources to make sure it takes.

As for facts, I have enough to know that by your affiliation to Milingo you are an excommunicate of the Catholic Church, “outside of which” as my traditionalist friends like to say, there is no salvation. But what know you of truth since you have breached yourself from the Magisterium which safeguards the deposit of faith and Christ’s truth among men?

Your own biography says that you were once a professed religious? Did you not break those vows? What about baptismal promises and the acclamation of your faith in confirmation? Anyone who breaks away from Catholic unity has broken his promises to God and to his Church. You can join or fabricate your own religion, but your dissent and schism makes you no better than the Protestant reformers. You might have some vague affiliation with Orthodoxy, but since George Stallings ordains women, who cannot be true priests, and since you are in communion with him, you cannot even claim their status. You are no better than the liberal Episcopalians who play at church with priestesses, gay ministers, civil blessings, and plenty of doctrinal heresy.

You are right about one thing, there is plenty of rubbish in my posting, but that comes with the territory of the topic. All of you are a disgrace!

No, our disagreement is about more than celibacy. Do not lie to us about that. Given time the doctrinal and practical divergence will grow even more intense. Such is the way with Protestant communities like yours, especially those staffed by ex-Catholics.

The Church has the authority to regulate the sacraments. The real disagreement here is one of ecclesiology! Mandatory celibacy in the West has worked so far and growing seminary classes indicate that it may continue to work well into the future. However, even if the discipline should change, it will be the decision of the Catholic hierarchy in union with the Holy See. You are not a practical Catholic, at least not anymore, and none of you have any say in the matter. Most of the defected married priests in the United States are old men. They will soon be meeting their Maker.

Nothing about freedom is violated. God gives the charism of celibacy to men he calls in the West. There is no genuine tension or competition between God’s will and the judgment of the Church about her ministries. You for instance, by your rebellious spirit and dissent, illustrate this truth; you probably do not have a vocation. That is why you had to fabricate a priesthood according to your own terms. When Milingo and my brother priest Stallings were ordained, they freely made their promises to their bishops and to God. No one forced them to be ordained. When they tried to get married, they disregarded Church law that stipulated quite clearly than any attempted marriage would be false and would be an occasion of mortal sin and fornication. They went ahead with it any way.

As for yourself, your path might have been different, but still promises were broken…unless you were never Catholic, and that does not seem to be the case. Your use of Scripture apart from the tradition of the Church and her Magisterial authority is Protestantism 101, not Catholicism!

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

We can hardly believe that a meeting of the Cardinals who head the Dicasteries was called to simply reaffirm celibacy. The report that was not released is the important one.

FATHER JOE

Your conjecture gets you nowhere. All the leaks about the meeting indicate that a majority preferred no change to the current discipline. The Pope himself was said to be looking for support to allow conservative Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics into full communion while allowing them to continue their tradition of an optional celibate or married clergy. Otherwise, compulsory celibacy would remain the rule for Roman Catholic priests.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

What did the Cardinals say about a married priesthood? Is the Vatican in such a state of denial that it cannot see the need for a married priesthood?

FATHER JOE

We have married deacons and a few married priests. Most priests I know are happy men who support the present discipline of compulsory celibacy. Are you in such a state of denial that you cannot see that the Church might be right on this one? You are not even a Catholic in good standing; why should you have a say on my priesthood and that other Catholic clergy? Do what you want in your new church; leave us true Catholics alone who are happy with where things are! I do not tell the Lutherans or Episcopalians what to do, even if I do lament their decisions. You should show us the same reserve. The fact that you and your cohorts do not is why I made the post. You are seeking to change, dare I say corrupt the Catholic Church. That is not something about which I can remain silent.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

“The Vatican’s denial of the problem confirms and encourages our mission to recall married priests to full ministry, said Archbishop Milingo. We are the only Catholic diocese calling for the ordination of married men, and for the return of married priests to full ministry,” Milingo said.

FATHER JOE

Milingo is living in fantasy land. He has no Catholic diocese at all. If men (and women) want to excommunicate themselves they can certainly join him. Like I said, many of the men who left priestly ministry for marriage are old now. They will not be with us much longer. Their disobedience can never be rewarded. Good priests remained at their posts and kept their promises, even when the heart strings were tugged. It would not be fair to them to invite the renegades back, particularly given their lack of contrition and restitution of the damage and scandal they caused.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Marriage is a sacrament of the church, celibacy is not. Marriage is higher calling than celibacy. The marriage vow trumps the celibacy promise. Our prelature believes that a married priest is a healthier priest, and that a married priesthood will give priests a healthy and proper outlet for their sexuality. We are created by God as sexual beings and our sexuality needs to be celebrated as a blessing for ourselves and our wives. Marriage needs to be the normal option for priests.

FATHER JOE

Marriage of a Catholic is not a sacrament if it is conducted by the Moonies. Marriage does not trump celibacy, indeed celibacy is a higher element recommended by St. Paul and constitutive of the evangelical counsels. Single-hearted love elevates the priesthood into an even more exceptional and high calling. Promises were made to be kept. A majority of the nation’s married priests who are invited back into ministry by Milingo have been married and divorced and married again. Broken promises often lead to more broken promises.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Married Priests Now! Prelature will hold a conference in Parsippany, NJ on December 8-10 (2006) to celebrate marriage and the priesthood. We will have a Catholic renewal of marriage vows during the celebration of the Eucharist for married priests and their wives.

FATHER JOE

Your argument implies that there is something wrong with celibacy or unhealthy and this is not the truth. It is a popular lie perpetuated by a sex-crazed society. Celibate love stands as a powerful sign of contradiction and it is a witness that condemns the hedonism of our age. Married love is a wonderful gift and certainly it can mitigate the negative effects of concupiscence from original sin; but celibate love is an even more special gift that illumines the life of Christ and the love that belongs to the saints in the heavenly kingdom. A priest’s vowed celibate love convicts the world and even religious movements like yours for its selfishness and disobedience. It is a discipline for sure, but it is not extraneous to priestly identity and service.

Married Priests Now! can do what it wants. I do object to their use of the word, “Catholic.” It is deceptive to poor souls who might not understand that these rascals are not in ecclesial communion with the Holy See. They are not truly “catholic” but are a particular and localized new faith community. Will the Moonie wives receive communion at this so-called Eucharist? They are not even technically Christian in the traditional sense. I suspect your nice little organization will eventually break asunder under the weight of increased doctrinal and ritual divergence.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

In St. Peter’s Square yesterday, a cleric was quoted in the news as saying that those priests who walked away from the priesthood to marry should not be received back as priests. Our prelature reminds such clergymen that the Gospel of Jesus is about forgiveness. And we remind him that the church is dying for want of priests. Recalling the married priests is a wholesome remedy to help save the church. “The first priests called by Christ were married and the church has always had married priests. We are going back to the New Testament roots of the priesthood when St. Peter and the apostles were married,” said Milingo.

FATHER JOE

The anonymous cleric is correct. YES, that is precisely my view, too. These renegade priests are a cancer or poison that the Church would best expel.

Your so-called prelature may stress forgiveness, but your mercy is a fraud. Forgiveness requires sorrow for sin, penance and even restitution. You rascals are not sorry. Indeed, you parade your disobedience and sins as if they are something about which to take pride. You invite others to separate themselves from the true Church and to live a life of dissent and fracture from genuine Catholic unity. As far as I can tell, that means the absolution you offer is empty or hollow. The disposition is all wrong. The Church may be suffering, but taking married priests who are both disobedient and heretics back to the breast of Mother Church would be more like suicide.

The Church will survive. About that we have Christ’s promise. But, you are no longer a juridical part of that Church, stop pretending otherwise!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

DEBATE ABOUT MILINGO & MARRIED PRIESTS NOW!

Posted on September 27, 2006 by Father Joe

144080553270835

This discussion is based upon yesterday’s post.

AMBER

There are several words for this but all that comes to mind right now is “disturbing.” I simply don’t get how they justify their actions.

GUY

Bongo, Bongo, Bongo— I never should have left the Congo—

What a circus side show! It seems that Peter Brennan is a member of every organization that will take him in.

Guthro, whom I have met on more than three occasions, was ALWAYS in choir cassock even though no liturgy was taking place. I guess if I put out all that cash for those glad rags I’d wear mine to the grocery store too! (I’ve heard that he does as well.)

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

A married priest comments:

Dear Father Joe, the issue was not apostolic succession. Each of these bishops is quite firm in his apostolic succession. The issue was MARRIED priests and bishops. I was ordained as a married priest so your inference about broken promises is mistaken. Your research is weak and minimal since you are just re-hashing media errors and assumptions. You should be able to do better. The Gospel of Jesus might say something about promoting this type of detraction and mud-slinging.

FATHER JOE

If each of these men were truly clear about his apostolic succession, additional ceremonies would be unwarranted. Of course, what really matters is not what each of these men think, but what the true Church holds to be true.

Are you Archbishop Brennan, or just using his name here? The post is unclear and the subsequent comment implies you are someone else.

If Peter Brennan were a professed religious as his biography states, then promises were broken. Or was even this “calling” outside the confines of the “real” Catholic Church? Along with the others, he is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church, outside of which (as the Fourth Lateran Council teaches) there is no salvation. Of course, the spiritual state of those who come to them and receive their sacraments is less clear, depending upon their understanding and profession of faith. I reiterate the Holy Father’s statement of excommunication with no malice, although I cannot pretend to feel no repugnance and sadness. That is probably what you see reflected in my words.

We have thousands of married clergy in the Catholic Church. Some of them were formerly Episcopalians or Lutherans who saw the inclusion of women and explicitly active gays in ministry as the further sign that ritual Protestantism could not constitute any form of third way of orthodoxy or Catholicism, and definitely not an “in media res.” Most of our married clergy are deacons. Indeed, my cousin’s husband is a deacon who operates a parish in North Carolina. The teaching and governing Church has every right to regulate her sacraments as she sees fit. I personally think the discipline of compulsory celibacy is an important and valuable element of Roman Catholic tradition. God works with the genuine shepherds of the Church and thus any man “truly given a religious vocation” also receives the charism of a celibate and single-hearted love. Men who left to get married or those who are angry after making their promises have my pity, but not my support. Given the age we live in, to forsake romantic love and intimacy is an intense sacrifice that should immediately join a priest to the Cross of Christ— not merely in sorrow but in joy. It is wrong to try and force the Church’s hand about a married priesthood. That day may come, but I suspect defections and parallel ecclesial communities will only short-circuit and delay its coming.

Archbishop Richard Arthur Marchenna, if he is the one who initially ordained Brennan, was a bishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church. If he was formerly a member of the true Catholic Church, then here is another case of broken promises, if only those made for him at baptism. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for those who join schismatic and breakaway faith communities. (Was he always ORCC?) While valid orders are sometimes acknowledged for a few of these groups, I must admit that I find much of it quite suspect. Now that some organizations are attempting to ordain women, the small lingering doubts are being brushed away. The priesthood is entirely lost.

I would be curious to see the ordinale recently used by Archbishop Milingo. Canonist friends of mine assert that any episcopal consecrations or absolute ordinations would be valid if the men were already truly priests and if the proper ritual was utilized. Tampering with the ritual, just as old Cranmer did for the Anglicans, can invalidate the whole business. Of course, consecrating bishops must still have the proper intention, and here too I must confess some concern, because it is hard to fathom how a man who claimed he was brainwashed might now be in his right mind.

I never intended a dissertation about what happened. Certainly, I am open to being enlightened. Notice I have not deleted your comments here. Indeed, reading your remarks gave me some peculiar amusement on a dreary overcast Sunday morning.

Do I sling mud? Hum, sometimes I get some on myself, too— mea culpa. In any case, while we very much disagree, these men are very much in my prayers, just as I have prayed daily for George Stallings these many years since my brother priest left the ranks of the Washington presbyterate. PEACE!

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Maybe an honest discussion about married priests would be much more worthwhile. What is the church going to do in twenty years since the average age of celibate priests now is above 70 years of age? Marriage will not make anyone younger but it will attract more young men (and women) to the profession. Here is an excerpt from a Catholic writer Roger Chesley of the Virginia Pilot who sees different possibilities.

With roughly 64 million members, the Catholic Church in the U.S. has struggled recently with rising numbers of parishioners and fewer priests to lead them. There are nearly 41,800 diocesan and religious priests in the country, down from 58,900 in 1975, according to the nonprofit Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

Meanwhile, married Episcopalian and Lutheran priests who convert to Catholicism have been allowed to remain priests, said Ryan of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I’m Catholic, and I’d appreciate a serious discussion among church leaders about married priests. But in no way can I condone what Archbishop Milingo has been doing. His methods are wrong. Though the church generally resists change, there’s still value in working from within— cajoling, persuading, reasoning. The archbishop’s actions amounted to freelancing.

“The church hasn’t moved in that direction at all” to end mandatory celibacy among priests, said Mary Gautier, senior research associate at CARA.

The Holy See Press Office said this week in a communique that the Archbishop Milingo’s “new association of married priests” has spread “division and confusion among the faithful.”

That’s unfortunate, given the importance of the issue that Milingo has done so much to raise.

FATHER JOE

I would agree that Archbishop Milingo has chosen the wrong method of getting his message across. I have no personal problem with priests and laity who work humbly and faithfully within the Church for a change of discipline. Although I believe the issue of women priests has been permanently resolved in the negative by Pope John Paul II and in such a way that it cannot be reopened.

I visited the website for Married Priests Now!

What do I think? Here is my initial reaction:

Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the Holy See, but “Married Priests Now!” is NOT a canonical personal prelature. Such a designation is a misnomer and deliberately misleading. Archbishop Milingo does not have the authority to create his own personal prelature. Archbishop Milingo and the four bishops he consecrated are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I know of no ground swell to return married priests to full ministry. Indeed, most married priests are themselves of advanced age and will soon be leaving this earthly pilgrimage entirely. If the Church should relax its discipline further in regard to a married priesthood, it is fairly certain that there would not be a retroactive component. Married men might become deacons and priests, but men who broke their vows would not be invited back. They proved themselves unreliable and while ontologically and sacramentally priests forever, will remain inactive and/or canonically laicized.

The “Brennan” poster insists that this is not a matter of assuring apostolic succession, but an article at the website linked to his comment (to which he directed me) says differently: “On September 24, 2006 Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the Roman Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop Emeritus of Lusake, Zambia, consecrated four Americans as Married Roman Catholic Bishops and appointed them to be Roman Catholic Archbishops.” The emphasis is that he made them bishops. Of course, they are all excommunicated, and so can hardly be called “Roman Catholic” given that they are all now disconnected from the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is bigger than one rogue bishop and four pretenders!

The Vatican affirms that they are all automatically excommunicated and yet Milingo states: “We cordially thank the Holy Father for his gracious and caring concern about us and Our College of Bishops and the Prelature for Married Priests Now! It is our intention to be faithful to the Church and to honor and respect the Holy Father. We thank him for his brotherly love and we hope to return the same to him.” Such a response shows one of two things, that Milingo is not above mocking the Church’s negative response or that he can no longer mentally comprehend how the Holy See actually views the situation.

Note that Milingo has violated his own promise of celibacy (by a civil or Moonie marriage if not by consummation) and that he would lead other men in the priesthood to do the same. He also violates a hallmark of Catholic faith, which is obedience. Disobedience by an archbishop to the Pope is no sign of respect, but of rebellion. Such is often the happenstance with fools or liars… and it may be that only God can tell who belongs to which category.

Priests dismissed from ministry for breaking their promises and getting married have been shown no injustice. Indeed, they are the ones who have inflicted a wound upon the Church. The Judas-priest also knows a long succession in the history of the Church and for many reasons like power, passion, weakness, and perversity.

I can respect a man who is released from his promises, is laicized and then gets married with the commitment to remain in the Church and raise his children as good Catholics. But attempting marriage while still bound by the promises of celibacy and obedience is wrong. It not only hurts the priest and the Church, but wrongs the woman by making her a spouse in name only. Civil contracts are not always recognized by God and the Church. Such rogue clergy turn their spouses into concubines and are fornicators masquerading as married men. The injustice on so many levels rests with Milingo and his new apostles.

Given that this Married Priests Now! organization also includes women priests, canonists might argue that there is a defect in intention, making any subsequent ordinations after rupture from Catholic unity– NULL AND VOID! The definition of what constitutes a bishop and priest may not sufficiently jive with genuine Catholic teaching. More and more, this is my opinion.

The Married Priests Now! movement says that they only want the restoration to ministry of married clergy. However, this is not true. Stallings broke away from Catholic unity many years before taking to himself his Moonie Asian wife. Indeed, at one time he was engaged to an Episcopalian gal from Texas, but she declared the whole thing off when troubling stories emerged about Stallings. The Washington Post even published a few articles about his association with certain “young” men in Washington, DC. Certainly, taking to himself a female spouse might put such stories to rest. I suspect that the real issue for him and all these men remains one of authority. George wanted to be a bishop and when that prospect seemed unlikely, he took off. These other men would also not accept being told what to do…not about sexuality…not about anything. Milingo has been fooled into thinking that this is simply a matter about married priests. It is not. It is about four men who wanted to make sure that they were really bishops…and repeated ordination ceremonies is ample evidence that they had their doubts. Milingo was used, plain and simple! Of course, he remains culpable.

Such movements often get quickly out of hand. If Milingo attempts to exert authority over them, I bet you this fragile prelature will fracture. Many of those who support a change in the discipline about married priests could not accept a radical change in doctrine that would permit women priests. We shall see in the weeks and months ahead just how far the contagion of dissent and heresy will go.

While the website is a harbinger of doom about clergy numbers, recent seminary classes are beginning to grow again and the men are more conservative and orthodox than we have seen in a long time. This is the truth that they would hide behind slanted statistics.

The discipline of celibacy is not merely a medieval dictum but is one that the living Church continues to see as worthwhile in most of our priests. It goes back over 900 years and even before that was extolled as the better way by many of the doctors of the Church. St. Paul, himself, recommends it. No one has a right to priesthood. It is a gift that comes from God and is given to the Church. Reserving the priesthood to single men is no injustice to married men and to women. Those that think so, as the site seems to stress, are guilty of wrong thinking… not as the Church thinks.

We read on the webpage: “The sexual abuse accusations against celibate priests in the United States speaks loudly that something is wrong. And what is wrong is the enforcement of a promise of celibacy on secular clergy.” This canard alerts us immediately that the argumentation for married priests is desperate to find reasons for a change. Abusers would still abuse, even if married. Indeed, some of the actual priest abusers had left ministry, gotten married, and then abused their own children… or the babysitters! Although it does not make the news, married Protestant ministers have their own problems, not only with child abuse but with gay relationships and with adultery and remarriage. Half of all Lutheran ministers are divorced and remarried! Indeed, priests who leave ministry for marriage have an inordinately high divorce rate. Priests troubled in keeping their promises and with intimacy will continue to have this struggle even if they should marry.

The website has no love for marriage, but has adopted the Moonie notion that men must be married and that to be single or celibate is to be a failure. Indeed, Jesus is faulted as a Messiah precisely because he failed to get married and have children. Notice what the website says: “Secular clergy should be married so that they can model what a good family is in the church community and so they can relate to the families they serve.” So, what are we to expect, a reversal from compulsory celibacy to compulsory marriage– count me out!

Men who have left ministry in order to get married without laicization can never be permitted to rejoin the ranks of the clergy, indeed, I would even object to these men returning if their spouses should die. They are not to be trusted. (Again, I might make an exception for men who did not attempt marriage and who waited for the laicization process, no matter how long and arduous.) Priests married outside the Church are not really married. Why would I want adulterers and fornicators back in the ranks of our good and faithful priests? No! They might yet repent and save their souls, but should never be allowed to minister in the Church, in any fashion.

Imani Temple and other groups can hold all the conventions they want for these men. Why should I care what a Protestant church does as it masquerades at being Catholic? Given a little more time and most of the thousands who left ministry will be in the grave. Already organizations like CORPUS are aging gatherings of old men. It is best to let them go. Better a smaller pool of priests than to contaminate the presbyterate with dissenters of this stripe. Most of these priests who left to get married subscribed to a whole list of doctrinal deviations, like support for women priests, peculiar Eucharistic theories, and dissent against the Church’s teachings about human sexuality and the evil of artificial contraception. I say let them go and allow God to take care of them.

A lot is made of the fact that these men fell in love, of course some of them bring their second or third wives to these convocations of shared grievances and lament. Honestly, most priests fall in love at some time or the other. Good priests then make distance to insure that they do not lead the woman into mortal sin. It might break his heart, but he lets her go because he has married the Church and promises are made to be kept. If he cannot keep his promises of celibacy and obedience in priesthood; how can he ask couples to keep their promises of marriage? Sometimes the greatest love is not expressed with a kiss or an embrace, but by letting go. Many faithful priests have suffered thus in silence, knowing that it was God’s will and the demand of their vocation. These are my heroes, men who weep for their people and make themselves poor in their service. In a sex crazed world, their celibacy gives them a special connection with the lonely and the poor and the sick. He belongs to them, even as he surrenders himself to Christ and to the Cross.

These rascals make demands on the Pope, sounding not unlike the radical Moslems as they seek to tell the successor of Peter his business. Note what Milingo says at their website: “Marriage is a sacrament and is a higher calling than celibacy.” This runs against the grain of ancient Christian tradition where celibate love was always deemed higher than sexual love. Most people will get married, but celibacy and perpetual virginity requires special graces and is a higher sacrifice. Their assertion impugns the long line of holy virgins and the religious sisters and nuns who have served the Church.

The audacity of these people know no bounds. Milingo writes: “We will work closely with the Holy Father, the Vatican offices, and other married priest organizations to once again make a married priesthood a normal part of the Church.” No they will not. They are now excluded from the Church and no longer have a voice in the true Church. Indeed, they have already set up parallel churches. Let them do what they want, the real Church is better off without them. Milingo writes: “I consecrated these four married men as Roman Catholic bishops in valid apostolic succession. The power and authority of a bishop comes from the very power and authority of his own sacramental consecration. I was consecrated by Pope Paul VI and, equipped with that sacramental power from him, I consecrated four married men in valid apostolic succession. These men are validly ordained Roman Catholic Bishops today and remain so in spite of Rome’s posture of denial of recognition.”

There you have it, Milingo consecrated them because he found their earlier ordinations dubious! But, he is wrong about Rome failing to give recognition. He was very much within the Vatican radar. That is why the Holy See has declared him and his four so-called bishops, excommunicated. Has Milingo gone insane, how can he call these licit ordinations? I am not even sure if they are valid. He says that they do not accept this excommunication, but that he returns it to the Pope. But the Pope only affirmed it as a reality; Milingo himself incurred it automatically by doing what he did. It is entirely his doing. He compares what he has done to the calling of the apostles in the early Church, but unlike them, he has separated himself from Peter, the Vicar of Christ. He draws apostles to himself, but not for the Lord. Milingo has made himself an anti-pope, or maybe worse, maybe he now pictures himself in the role of God?

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

BREAKWAY BISHOPS SEEK SUCCESSION THRU MILINGO!

Posted on September 26, 2006 by Father Joe

Reports are unclear and have used various words for what Archbishop Milingo did in Washington, DC last Sunday, saying that he either installed or ordained four men. One thing is for certain, he follows the rhythm of his own drum, no matter how out of sync with the universal Church.

What the news media is missing about the Milingo fiasco is that all the men that he ordained (or consecrated) were in their own estimations, already bishops! If so, why would they go through this ritual with the Zambian archbishop? Scuttlebut says the following:

1. Archbishop Milingo himself was concerned that some of the independent bishops with whom he had found affiliation might not be validly ordained as bishops.

2. These men themselves often go to great lengths to convince others that they are true bishops. However, one has to wonder if they are not guilt-ridden and unsure themselves? Now, with an authentic Roman Catholic archbishop backing up their pedigree, they can put doubt to the wind.

It is also interesting to note that our own George Augustus Stallings, Junior seems to be moving back toward a more “orthodox” Catholic theology. He talks about the sacrament of penance again, although back in the early 1990’s he dismissed it.

Who are these men who have flocked to Milingo?

GEORGE STALLINGS – Imani Temple, 1015 I St., Washington, DC 20002

George Augustus Stallings, Jr. was born in 1948 and like Milingo has an Asian Moonie wife. He was a priest for the Archdiocese of Washington, DC and for many years was the popular pastor of St. Theresa’s Church. He was known for his lavish lifestyle and expensive tastes. Ordained in 1974, he founded the Imani Temple African American Catholic Congregation in 1989. He claims to have been ordained a bishop in 1990 and elevated (himself) to archbishop in 1991. He told a young girl on the Oprah television show that blacks are God’s chosen people and that people of color will be resurrected first in the heavenly kingdom, a tenet I think he shares with some of the Black Muslims.

PETER PAUL BRENNAN – 151 Regent Place, West Hempstead, New York 11552

Peter Brennan also started out as a Catholic and he claims membership in a whole assortment of ecclesial communions, none of which is truly Catholic: The Ecumenical Catholic Diocese of the Americas, the African Orthodox Church and the Order of Corporate Reunion. He attended Catholic seminaries, like Stallings, and was a professed Religious before his defection from true Catholic unity. A member of CORPUS, the issue of a married priesthood is also high on his agenda…much more so than fidelity to the sacred promises he once made. His bio says that he was ordained a priest in 1972 by Bishop Marchenna. He had himself ordained again in 1974, and later as a bishop in 1978, 1979, and twice in 1987. Evidently many of these were conditional ordinations in case it did not take the first time…try, try again…bingo, Milingo (2006)!

PATRICK TRUJILLO – 6020 Newkirk Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047

Pat Trujillo belongs to the Old Catholic Church, you know the group that also ordains the gals, now– just like George Stallings! They might have a nice liturgy, but that alone did not spare them increasing doctrinal divergence and heresy. He claims to be the ordinary of the Archdiocese of Our Lady of Guadalupe, New Jersey (despite the name, we are talking about a very small operation)!

I do not know much more about him. Maybe that is for the best, now that he is one of Milingo’s pals.

JOSEPH J. GOUTHRO – 925 Felix Palm Avenue, North Las Vegas, NJ 89032

Joe Gouthro is a Las Vegas hack for quickie weddings! I guess it gives Catholic patrons who are married “out of the Church” that religious feeling that it is okay, despite being married before and not really practicing anyway.

Like all the rest, he makes a point of telling us that he was “ordained and consecrated in valid Apostolic Succession” by some peculiar group called Catholic Apostolic Church International– a bogus Catholic group if ever there was one. He advertises on his shingle that he “officiates Catholic, interfaith, non-denominational, cross cultural and civil weddings.” Ah, and you should see his rates!

His website reports: “He will customize your ceremony according to your wishes. The ceremony can be officiated according to the Roman Catholic Ritual or the Anglican Book of Commom Prayer.” Look at this, he plays both Anglican and Catholic priest…oops, I mean, bishop!

What are his real credentials? He served three cruise lines as a coordinator. He must be the LOVE BOAT Bishop! And forget about the requirement of a Church wedding, he says he will marry you anywhere…golf clubs…hotels…nature sites…even Elvis marriage chapels with neon light glory!

I guess he has reservations about his holy orders like the other men, so Milingo made him official.

I wonder if all the ordinations were conditional and not absolute? Were all of these guys ex-Catholics, and if so, how much did the excommunications matter?

All four men claim affiliation to the breakaway Synod of Old Catholic Churches. “We are not only validly ordained Catholic bishops, but we are ordained Roman Catholic bishops,” George Stallings explained.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apostles, Archdiocese, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

CUA PHIL. LECTURE: Number & Species in Augustine

Posted on September 9, 2006 by Father Joe

157453472197167560

2006 Fall Philosophy Lecture Series at CUA

I really did not get to take my day off on Wednesday, so I sneaked out this afternoon and went to a lecture at Catholic University by Professor Kevin White entitled, “Augustine on Number and Species”. My friends Genna (a philosophy student) and her Dad were there and I also got to see Sr. Marion Brady, a delightful religious who teaches there and whom I had not seen in some time. It has been twenty years since I really criss-crossed the campus and I had a devil of a time finding the building where the lecture was given. There have been a lot of changes and construction on campus since I was a theology student. I understand that this year’s Freshmen class is about double the enrollment from last year, with a greater stress on local kids. That is fine and good, I only hope we do not have a repeat of the crime epidemic from last year.

I did not have a camera to take pictures at the event and so I have included photos of people who might have attended had they been able. I am not saying that they “exactly” resemble attendees. Oh, enough with rationalizations, it is just too much fun to pass up!

It was Genna that reminded me of the talk. What she said nothing about was that the Life Cycle Center, where the talk was held, was on the other side of the campus from the Shrine parking lot! Panting up a couple of hills, heck the whole route was uphill, I finally made it. The kids were nice though: “Are you okay, Father?” “Are you sure you can make it?” “Should we get an ambulance?” Yes, nice kids, and I made it with time to spare.

Dr. White gave us a nice outline and spoke clearly on the subject matter. Since he is writing an article on the subject, I cannot post much about it. I can, however, make a quick reflection about NUMBERS that intrigued me in his message.

I enjoyed the talk by Dr. White very much. I have to admit that I never gave St. Augustine’s numerology a great deal of consideration, particularly as the notion of an ontology in their regard seemed to go further than any authorized ecclesiological appreciation.

I did recall that as a Christian, St. Augustine saw God as the Creator and that everything he created was good. Evil was viewed as an aberration from our side of the equation. It is within the context of creation that the great saint speaks about order and numbers. He held, as we heard in the talk, that nothing can exist apart from numbers. He said,

“Neither by bodily sense nor by the thinking mind can you find any mutable thing which is not contained in some numerical form” (Hyman 51).

One person asked after the talk whether we all had the same number or different numbers. The person was also on to something important. Everything exists in numbers. The connection was made with modernity and how St. Augustine might be delighted by something like DNA and how science has revealed the numbers of creation.

I wondered to myself, what his take might have been on a film like THE MATRIX where the artificially produced reality of most people is composed of the ones and zeros of a complex computer program? It is a fanciful story, but still, even pixels in a computer generated image is readily understood as numbers in certain positions. My thoughts also went back to my boyhood when I would paint pictures in special paint-by-the-numbers sets and watercolors. Ah, I digress…but it is so much fun, even if silly.

There is commonality but there is also a number for me and for you and for the other guy. The form (in numbers) that belongs to created things are existentially dependent upon that changeless form (truth) which we call God. We can attribute to God every created thing and everything has measure, number and weight (or order) [the three themes discussed by Dr. White]. Given my bulk, “weight” is an attribute I try NOT talking about–ha ha! (Yes, I know he means a different kind of weight, just kidding!)

The observation also came up at the talk that an awareness of numbers was not just something derived from the senses but by the rational mind. St. Augustine writes:

“In no wise; for even if I perceived numbers by the bodily senses, I was not able by these same senses to perceive the laws of the division and addition of numbers. For it is by the light of the mind [luce mentis] that I correct anyone who gives me the wrong result of adding or subtracting. Moreover, I know nothing of how long sensibly perceived things like the heaven, this earth, and the other bodies therein will endure, but seven and three are ten, not only now but always, nor was it ever true in the past that seven and three were not ten nor will seven and three sometime in the future not be ten. Such then is the incorruptible truth of number which, as I have said, is common to me and anyone else who reason.” (De lib. arb., II, viii, 21)

Our rational intellect embraces truth while the senses do not; only the intellect can grasp order, the truth about numbers. Given that the idea of oneness or unity cannot be grasped from sense perceptions of corporeal things, such must be the case.

I particularly liked the way Dr. White broke down St. Augustine’s understanding of numbers into easy lists. It all goes a long way in appreciating species.

NUMBERS IN MUSIC:

numeri progressores
numeri sonates
numeri occursores
numeri recordabiles
numeri iudiciales

NUMBERS IN CARPENTRY (NATURE OF THINGS):

rational numbers
habitual numbers
action numbers
spatial numbers

Professor White spoke about Augustine’s perfect number, III (3), which has a beginning, middle and end. Six (1 + 2 + 3) is also pertinent and St. Augustine tells us that God opted to create the world in a perfect number of days, 6. Of course, St. Augustine’s numerology was not that of the authors to the Hebrew Scriptures.

The professor said he would look again at St. Augustine’s ON THE TRINITY, he even joked that we should all read it. It is filled with three’s of various sorts. St. Augustine felt that God had left his Trinitarian fingerprint upon creation, including men.

Many of the questions at the end of the talk were good, although I felt a few were strained. For instance, one person wanted to know the if there was a difference between something like five apples in a basket and five fingers on a hand. I thought the question peculiar, because obviously five fingers is demonstrative of the nature of man while a collection of apples or anything is a bit arbitrary. The use of number is obviously different.

Anyhow, time for me to shut the little grey cells down for the night. They are not what they used to be, and thinking such thoughts as these can give one a headache. Just thought I would share a few thoughts while the inspiration was alive. Maybe it is gibberish, maybe not? In any case, it is time for the aspirin…and something mindless. Now where did I put the television remote control? I hear they are showing reruns of THE DUKES OF HAZZARD.