Faith & Values in the News

6 Responses

Ralph H Thomas, on May 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm said:

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC PRIEST SECRETLY MARRIED A YEAR

“Goodbye sir, and don’t let the church door hit you in the butt on the way out!”

I found this comment tasteless and cruel. I cannot imagine Jesus being so callous. RHT

FATHER JOE:

The priest in question broke his promises, lived a lie and now seeks to publicly undermine the Catholic faith of his parishioners. The rudeness is his and I think we should all “excommunicate” from our lives those wolves who place themselves over the needs of their flocks. He shows no contrition about his actions. Indeed, his new book will publicize his attempted marriage and give the impression that “mortal sin” is something that is good and noble. It is neither. The priest’s marriage is null-and-void. He is a fornicator who did not care about possibly damning the person he claimed to love.

Is my harshness about this in conflict with Jesus? I hardly think so. As was said to another priest long ago, I could have announced:

“…but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born” (Matthew 26:24).

Or I could have echoed the verdict of Christ against hypocritical leaders in his own time: (Matthew 23)

“Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”

“All their works are performed to be seen.”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.”

“Woe to you, blind guides!”

“Blind fools!”

“Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!”

“You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.”

“You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?”

Hum , it seems to me that my words are far kinder than those our Lord might use. I would still pray that the priest will repent of his sin and seek reconciliation with Christ and his Church. But his active ministry is over. If he will not repent, then he must be utterly cast out. I suspect that before long he will either invent his own religion or join the “anything goes” Episcopalians.
Karl, on May 22, 2012 at 1:08 am said:

Being on the threshold of 58, I simply cannot fathom how precipitous has been the collapse of real freedom in the west and especially, in America; at the hands, in general, of my generation who were “riotous” at the “freedom” they saw “threatened” 40+ years ago, yet are, apparently, simply enraptured by what masquerades as “civil right” in their “golden years”.

I shudder to think how many of my contemporaries will see fit to be euthanized in the pursuit of the “greater good” of the religion of “Environmentalism” when its moment in the sun finally arrives in the coming days and who will be even more enthused to require the same “blessing” be shared, first, with others who are not of the same belief system but whose particular religion or philosophy of life is deemed “archaic” by the same.

For the good times….God bless you, Fr. Joe.

Karl
Roy Hobble, on May 21, 2012 at 12:52 am said:

Yes Father Joe , there is a difference between the right to chose, and the right choice. The church certainly should not be silent as to past , future, or present wrongs as your answer to “Norman ” indicates. In addition I do have a problem with human Theocracy’s. It’s my conclusion that the unborn have a right to life as does also the mother.
Norman, on May 19, 2012 at 5:06 pm said:

Father Joe, why force your doctrine on everyone as oppose to those who fall within your religious sect?

The Catholic Church has been imposing its own interpretation of righteousness while disregarding the rights of other religious groups.

The greatest gift a man shall ever possess is his freedom, but to dictate the rules based on your principles hardly feels fair considering all other alternatives.

Imagine being told to eat kosher food by the Jewish community. Would that be fair to you or anyone else in this country?

Religions differ on abortion, in-vitro, and many other medical procedures you may oppose. The question is, why force your believes upon the others when the very nature and beauty of our country is to allow choice and freedom to pursue your own life fulfillment (without entrenching upon rights of others)?

FATHER JOE:

Actually, we do not force Catholic doctrines upon others. However, we believe that there are some objective values that reflect our common humanity and the order of creation, itself. The argument is not so much against the Church as it is against God. This is how you should have written your first sentence: “God, why force your notions of objective order and truth upon those who prefer their own subjective values and want no part of you?”

The Catholic Church’s views about right and wrong were once shared by the larger Judeo-Christian community. It has only been in the last century or so, and particularly the last fifty years that we started to see a re-evaluation of faith values and the secular and/or hedonistic contamination of religious bodies. True Christianity is not very tolerant of sin and no redefining sin by men can subtract from the divine mandates. Genuine Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was directly established by Christ and he is God come among us. We believe that he has empowered the Church with his Spirit, so that we can have certitude in the faith and morals taught and trust in the efficacy of the sacraments. The Church will always condemn sin; in this sense, the Church is not tolerant. The pagan Romans persecuted the early Christians for what they viewed as intolerance toward their pantheon of deities, the divine emperor and their moral excesses. Abortion, infanticide, polygamy, divorce, and homosexuality were practiced in the ancient pagan world. The Church, from the very start, said NO!

Freedom is indeed a great human right. However, you should not confuse it with a frivolous moral license to do whatever you want. Positive values and laws should come from nature, the Church and society itself. You are contending that the Church should have no voice in the public forum and shut up. This the Church will never do. Catholic principles are not capricious and are shared by many right-thinking people outside the visible Church. My own preferences are very libertarian. Laws are needed for an ordered society and to assist men and women to make the right choices. But I would be the first to protest against unnecessary laws and regulations. Laws protect us and our freedom. Consideration of alternatives does not mean acquiescence to those views or opinions. If you have read the documents released by the Church, you would see that such evaluations are always part of the research and reflection in what the Church decides and teaches.

The issue of acceptable foods for Jews or anyone else is a far cry from questions that touch upon the sanctity life and human dignity. You ask the rhetorical question, would it be fair if we all had to eat kosher foods? I would ask you, should the Church be compelled to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients which we view as destructive to human life? I would ask you, must we accept same-sex marriages as legitimate, and face penalties for “discrimination” in their regard? I would ask you, is it right that parents should get a call during a school day to find out that their 15 year old daughter is hemorrhaging to death from an abortion that went bad?

All of Christianity was of one mind about artificial contraception until 1930. There were no stirrings against abortion until the 1970’s. Truth is truth despite the changing fads of time. Churches separated from the shepherds Christ appointed and protected are more likely to fall into grievous error about many things. The Church gives voice to basic principles that others, like you, would silence. Your battle cry is freedom and toleration, but you only mean for your side of the debate. When it comes to the Church, you would have her muffled and bound. Mutually exclusive views and positions logically come to a head. You cannot be both in favor of the death penalty and for it. You cannot oppose all war and make exceptions with so-called just wars. You cannot oppose abortion as the murder of children and then enable women to kill million of children (by Choice) each year. When it comes to a matter like in-vitro, the problems are serious. Instead of thinking it through, you jump on the bandwagon in its favor and damn the consequences. Such procedures replace the sacramental marital act with something that is mechanistic and inserts a third party. This furthers the mentality that a child is a commodity. You can do whatever you can to either have one, or to get rid of one. In-vitro also frequently requires the fertilization of addition embryos and freezing. We believe that there is a developmental trajectory to every human life. Such treatment of human beings, akin to abortion, is degrading to their dignity. You finish with a sentiment that many would find appealing: that our rights and freedoms should not trod over those of others. But this is precisely what the radical element of our society does. The Church tells on them and seeks to block them. This is why you are upset, despite your words to the contrary. As with abortion, few critics ask about the freedom of the unborn and their rights. Just as with the slave, oppressive societies would reduce freedom and rights to a few— stripping them entirely from others and devaluing their humanity.
Lauran, on May 19, 2012 at 5:02 pm said:

As if the present is the first time that the Cross was banned–clearly, those who are banning the Cross of Christ have forgotten, or never knew, that the Cross has always triumphed, and has always come back, with a vengeance.

FATHER JOE: A new age of persecution is clearly upon us.
Father Joe, on May 2, 2012 at 8:27 pm said:

I thought maybe my remarks were too harsh, but now I hear Fr. Lee is writing a “tell all” book to rat out other priests and argues that celibacy breeds pedophiles. If he knew outside the sacrament of actual abusers, then he should have gone straight to the authorities. If he knew of other misbehaving priests “living a lie,” but within civil law, then he should have admonished them in private. If they still refused to shape up, he should have reported them to the archbishop for censure. This man is all about scandal and threats.