Ask a Priest

5,433 Responses

St. Timonious, on June 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm said:

I guess I can get upset at being labeled a troll, but as a struggling and weak Christian I should probably recognize that you are right and do something about improving my behavior. Getting upset won’t fix me or others but changing my own actions and showing good instead of bad, will. I was reading some stories about the lives of Saints and there was a Saint who was starving and in jail and miserable and he came to the realization that “He deserved this a much much worse” perhaps in comparison to purgatory or some past offence he did. Is that something that I should try to emulate? There was a kind and gentle and humble priest who used to end each and every one of his homilies with this sentence. “Please pray for a poor poor sinner like me” With you, I was just testing the water, so to speak, to see if being challenging and foreign was something that people respond to in a certain way. I should of been absolutely strait-forward with you. I can’t challenge you in an area where I am wanting as well. That unfair and hypocritical. You did fine, but I wanted to see how you might respond if… sort of thing , was going on in the back of my mind. I kind of do the same things that you do with me. I pick over the things that people say and weigh them in my head and say. No that’s doesn’t sound Christian at all, so I’ll strike that, yes he might be right there so I’ll include that, sort of like I was at a buffet and only changed my behavior when, or if, something someone said to me resonated or sounded soothing, familiar or comfortable to my ears and not upset or judgmental or challenging. Can my behavior be divisive and put us both in danger of hell? Since a relationship and understanding of Christ’s love won’t get forged? Certainly having a priest in my life however upset he is with me is a good thing, might at least keep the devil second guessing at his confidence in driving any and every good thing out of my life.

FATHER JOE:

The definition of an Internet Troll is given by Wikipedia as follows: “Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

My observation is not meant to be mean-spirited, but you need to face the truth about yourself if there is going to be a positive change. On your own blog or website you could act as you please, but a certain civility is expected when you are a guest on someone else’s site.

As for how the priest you mentioned finished homilies, every priest as a Confessor of souls, counts himself as the first sinner. His sentiment was not unique. We all need God’s mercy and healing.

I am not sure what you meant by “testing the water,” it seemed to me that the intent was to put me on the defensive. When it comes to religion, I do not so much pander to speculation but try to communicate what the Church holds to be true. I am upset with foolishness and bigotry but only feel pity when I encounter ignorance. I am not saying I had any such emotions in your regard; I merely tried to respond with a passion for the truth and with a certain degree of clarity.

The intention of this Blog is to focus on the truths of faith and to facilitate reflection. Anger has never really figured into it. As I write, I am not swearing under my breath or seeking to win arguments at all costs. My disposition is one of prayer and studious erudition.
Ron Amundson, on June 18, 2011 at 7:53 am said:

This is one of the best explanations of Mary as a Co-Redemtrix, Mediatrix that I, as a non-Catholic have ever come across. In theory it sounds very reasonable, but I fear practice could morph beyond conditional and secondary… Some of my Catholic friends who are exceedingly devoted to Mary, seem to have already crossed that line, or at least it sure seems that way in our discussions. Perhaps, in the recesses of their heart, they havent, and being a protestant, such obviously colors my views more that a bit. Ultimately, only God knows, but I do see this as a potential danger. Thank you once again for a wonderful explanation.
Daisy DB, on June 18, 2011 at 2:02 am said:

Hello Fr. Joe,

I am a 37 year old Catholic woman with long-term sobriety and now, celibacy, who has struggled with Spiritual Interruption and possession for 25 years. I have been through 5 exorcisms by five different sources, the last being Jesuit priests about three months ago.

The Jesuits along with two close family members were witness to an experience very similar to the ones you discussed. I had to be held down, spoke in a different language, and spewed obscenities. It was horrible and not the first time I have experienced the attacks. The Jesuit explained that my soul was not possessed but that I was under constant spiritual attack. “Angel Intelligence and Pests” were the terms he used.

I work with people in a healing capacity in the fitness and bodywork industry. I have little to no ability to control the absorption of my clients’ negative energies. My work often leaves me in altered states, exhausted and incapacitated. My clients leave after working with me feeling rejuvenated and addicted to me and my work with them.

I have tried leaving my field of work and am forcefully drawn back into it. Any other work or relationship I have pursued has been clearly sabotaged by external forces. I wonder everyday if it is God’s will for me to be a healer and dedicate my life to making others feel better at my own expense, or if I have become a vessel of the Devil and his attraction. I am aware of the times I am hosting an entity and have developed a very strong mind and set of tools to recognize it and work through it/clear it.

The lengths of time I have been struggling with this and the circumstances it has created in my life are going far beyond my scope of coping though. This has brought me to my knees. I feel helpless and beyond exhausted. Being this way is killing me. I do not have any more solutions and am losing the fight. Any suggestion is welcome.

Daisy

FATHER JOE:

Dear Daisy,

Are you sure that you have experienced genuine exorcisms? The Jesuit priests would have had to receive permission from the Ordinary and that is only given after an investigation. Sometimes priests give blessings and minor exorcisms, as in baptism. There is also the growing practice of less formal deliverance prayer. I have often advised the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel and consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Were the other exorcisms conducted by approved priests? If not, lay faith healers and so-called psychics can make matters far worse. We do not want to either fuel superstition or exacerbate a true spiritual attack. Ordinarily, the Church insists upon a psychological evaluation.

I am unfamiliar with nuance purportedly offered by the Jesuits. Demons are fallen angels and as pure spirits they are composed of intellect, will and angelic power. Those attacked by them could rightly call them “pests,” just as Father Vianney and Padre Pio experienced, albeit victoriously and resisting temptation along with despair. There is much left unexplained in your message, particularly what if anything instigated the spiritual assault.

I am also at odds to understand what you mean by absorbing your “clients’ negative energies.” We can be drained by the presence of evil but I doubt that everyone you work with would qualify for such a classification. I am not sure there is any such thing as “negative energy.” Evil is by definition a negation. We are not empowered by evil but drained by it. It has no energy to give, rather it takes.

If a person is a host for the devil, he or she cannot be a true healer. I would urge that you seek healing for yourself— from the Church and from professionals in the medical and psychiatric field. I am not saying that this is all in your mind. It is not for me to know in this simple correspondence. But a person can suffer both from spiritual affliction and psychological illness. Having said this, and given what else you write, the business about having “tools to recognize it and work through it” is a deception. It does not work that way. The devil would have you believe that you have matters under control, so that he could continue to eat away at you. Refusal to seek out psychological help is also a tactic of the devil. You need healing of mind, body and soul.

Take my advice and seek the proper counsel. The devil only wins if we let him win. The fight is not so much ours but Christ’s. While suffering and death as the consequences of sin have yet to be undone, Our Lord has already conquered the devil and the grave. Say your prayers, go to Mass and seek the appropriate help. Do not resist doing this. The Lord works through priests and healers in the medical profession.

Blessings,
Father Joe
Sad Wife, on June 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm said:

Father:
Please help me to understand what the Church means by “unitive” when referring to the marriage act. What is required for an act to be unitive? The reason why I am asking is because my husband hurt me deeply through pornography addiction over a number of years. Therapists tell me not to deny him access to my body. They believe I want to do this to punish him– but in reality, I think that the anger that I have toward him and the very deep depression that is caused by the wounds I have from this behavior, and the mistrust toward him all work together to undermine any sense of affective love toward him. I have a hard time believing that he can be sincere in any sexual act, and even though I have always had an extremely high libido and love participating in the marriage act, I no longer feel that it has any meaning whatsoever in our marriage. To me, this situation implies a lack of the “unity” aspect required by the Church. We are an NFP couple, so we are in compliance with the “procreative” requirement.

To me it seems barbaric to suggest that a wife, who has been faithful even under difficult circumstances (and in the face of great temptation), should be required to give her body to someone who has hurt her so many times, and broken her heart repeatedly. It makes me feel like a slave, owned by my husband when therapists and priests suggest that I am wrong to withhold myself.

FATHER JOE:

No one should have to suffer abuse, but refusal to share the marital act and physical affection with a spouse would in itself signal a serious problem and contribute to its wounded condition. Marriage is by definition a relationship of friendship which focuses on the complementarities of men’s and women’s bodies. Pornography hurts a marriage because it functions as a form of virtual adultery and devalues the personal and individuated elements of sexuality in marriage. In other words, married men and women are not animals in heat but persons who love and self-surrender to each other in an exclusive and intimate way.

I am sorry that a trust was betrayed and I can only hope and pray that your union with your husband will know healing. He needs your help to battle an addiction to pornography. This means prayer as a couple, a healing of memories and mutual forgiveness and the continued renewal of your covenant with the Lord and to each other through the marital act. You are not a slave of your husband. However, you do belong to him. He also belongs to you. Denial of the marriage bed would destroy a constitutive element of what your marriage as Christians is about. The unitive element of the marriage act is more than the physical act of coitus but should not exclude it. As the Scriptures remind us, the two become one flesh. They are to be helpmates in raising a family and in mutual support. A couple is drawn to each other into a union that is an expression of divine providence. This unitive element means that they are one and that they are bonded for the length of their natural lives. While fidelity is another way of understanding this unity, problems with pornography or even actual infidelity with another person would not in themselves negate the sacrament.

I do not know you or your husband, but on the basis of what you have told me here, I would concur with the counselor and priest: you should not withhold “yourself” from your spouse. Notice that I did not simply say “your body,” because such an expression in itself may betray the same mentality that afflicted your husband with pornography. Your body is not extraneous to you. You are your body. Liberal separatists would argue otherwise, and for a host of accompanying sins; accepted Catholic moral teaching is integralist and insists that you are an ensouled corporeal composite. Your identity and personhood is tied up with the matter or flesh that makes you— you. Can a marriage survive if the wife tells her husband that he cannot have conjugal union with her? The unitive element may not always be perfect, but the presumption is that it is still present. Hopefully a loving passion will not be displaced by a lust that objectifies the beloved. In any case, even St. Paul told his listeners that “it is better to marry than to burn.” Help your husband to go to heaven. Remind him of his duties toward you. Stop looking for ways out of this relationship or to create distance. Rededicate yourselves to each other and to the Lord.
kay, on June 12, 2011 at 8:16 pm said:

Father Jenkins,
I am involved in an online discussion concerining human nature and God. It began because a devout catholic wih sam sex attraction (living chasely) said that God made him this way and it must be part of God’s plan. People wrote to tell him that God did not make him this way, it was the devil. Other’s said that God did not make him this way, God only makes the soul, his body was just generated biologically. One states that since same sex attraction is an imperfection it cannot come from God because God cannot make anything less than Himself-Absolute Perfection. One states that since concupiscence came from the fall of man it is because of Satan. These are all devout Catholic saying these things. I cannot find any of them in the Catechism. Are any of them the teaching of the Church or are people just conjecturing?

FATHER JOE: Every human being created by God has a sacred dignity and immeasurable value. Further, what God creates is reckoned as good. However, the mystery of sin brought disharmony, sickness and death into the world. A sexual disorientation would be viewed in light of the weaknesses and imperfections brought into this world by man’s rebellion. The disorientation in itself, as long as not acted upon, does not incur any moral or sinful recrimination upon the individual person. Indeed, struggles with any challenge can give inspiring stories of courage, sacrifice and faith. COURAGE, a movement started by my cousin, the late Fr. John Harvey, stressed that chaste homosexuals might gift the world with celibate charity and service. We were all made for love, but that love for persons can be expressed in platonic, prayerful and fruitful ways. That may be an important element of their vocation as Christian disciples.
St. Timonious, on June 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm said:

Oh, wow, sorry, yes I am a bad person, even trollish and really bad at times, this is true.

I’m bad, I stink, and I say ‘peace’ when it is the furthest thing from my heart.

I have all sorts of other things I do wrong, since my goodness is just superficial at best sometimes.

In fact that is why I go to Church and need to love going and God’s love. I need good a deal of fixing from the priests. Doesn’t everybody? I see here that I am a bad one.

When Jesus talks about being the “Good Shepherd,” it dawned on me that WE must be like stupid sheep to Jesus, acting just completely inane; and yet he pours his love and patience out and chases us to the ends of the earth. Why would a living God go to all the trouble over relentlessly dumb sheep?

FATHER JOE: I have removed the remarks of recrimination against me and the priesthood. Not knowing you personally, I cannot say how good or bad you are; however, the absolution of a priest can restore any of us to God’s good graces. We are all precious in God’s eyes, both judgmental priests and Internet trolls. Take care.
Paul Brann, on June 12, 2011 at 8:22 am said:

Dear Father Joe,

This confusion around the title purportedly ascribed to Mary the Mother of God, led me to thinking, and it is around the works of the Holy Spirit and continuing revelation of God’s will in the modern times.

Fundamentalist Christians and anti-catholic die hards will contest that for thousands of years YHWH revealed His plan through the prophets of the Old Testament, through direct communication such as ‘The Burning Bush’ and through Angelic direction. Then Jesus came into the world and promised The Holy Spirit to enlighten and guide the Church into it’s future. All of this was, a little while later, written down in The New Testamant which replaced the Old and topped off with its rather demanding ending in The Book of Revelation, which they claim to understand to the letter.

Those militant anti-Catholics, fundamentalist Christians and others not part of The Catholic Chursh see a VERY BIG FULL STOP at this point and assume that God has suddenly stopped His revelation 40 days after Easter. However it is known that much of what was written was many decades after that anyway and the inerrant quality of those records was, without doubt, ensured by the power of The Holy Spirit.

So, I suppose the question is this: Has God stopped revealing His thuth and His plan to us here on Earth or is it reasonable to assme that He still has an interest in the direction of His creation ? Is He still talking to us or has He given up and expects us to simply to read the instructions?

I believe that God has not changed and as He slowly made our forefathers aware of His supreme position in the whole of His creation, so too does He enlighten and inspire us today if we listen with the heart, a heart filled with love and compassion and as free from corruption as we can attain with all of the help available to each and everyone of us. Simply a heart as pure and as yielding as that of His Mother Mary when she agreed to listen and accept His plan as told to her by that angelic messenger. I believe that really happened and it is written down in The Holy Bible. God revealed His will to a human through the medium of a heavenly messenger. So can He and has He ever used His Holy Mother as a messenger to reveal further truths to us in modern times or does He remain incognito?

As Catholics we are not required to believe in the validity or otherwise of such recordings about visions and so called revelations at sites such as Lourdes, Fatima and other unusual locations around Europe and possibly South America, but what if they are true? What if these so called revelations really are other or extra parts of God’s truth and will? It is disturbing to read the writings of Lucia when she claims that The Blessed Virgin told her that many souls would be going to Hell simply because there were not sufficient prayers and sacrifices being offered for them here by the living. It that true? And if it is then it is truely awful and I need to try to do something about it.

Bernadette Soubarox said, when cruely questioned by the ogre of a priest in that parish, ‘the lady said she was “The Immaculate Conception”…..that from the mouth of a little girl would be most unlikely unless she either heard it from a theologian of the time, she was discredited by that hard hearted priest or God revealed it to her in the way of His choosing.

The anti-catholic antagonist will argue that all we need is to read and study the bible as everything is in there, Anything extra is flawed and they claim that much of what we Catholics believe is not Biblical and therefore heretical. They do not ascribe to the notions of ‘Tradition and Continued Revelation’ and thus, if what they believe is true, then there will be many differences between their belief and ours, they will say that we must not worship the Saints and Mary, and that faslehood is as subtle as asking any good honest man; “Has he stopped beating his wife yet” That rubbish is not worth the time to engage. However if such manifestations of Divine concern are true, and remember over 60,000 people, many of them sceptics and worse, actually witnessed the ‘miracle of the sun’ at Fatima about 100 years ago, then we must truely work out our salvation and not simply and simplistically say: “Jesus is all I need and I am saved” For this one struggling and enquiring Catholic, that is a very dangerous path to tread.

I wait in fear and trembling for that judgement day, and I try to remember St Pauls warning about being so carried way with our own feelings of certainty and arrogance when teaching The Truth we manage to exclude our very souls from that Divine promise. I am never one hundred percent certain about any of this and I thank God for that. It simply means I am unlikely to become a fanatic. I live with doubt every day, but then doubt and belief are simply two sides of the same coin cemented together with faith, and faith is what I must work on as without it my life tends to fall apart and the coin lands tails up with doubt dominating my consciousness and despair starts to take hold. I thank God for that doubt but I ask in earnest prayer for a growing faith that I might survive the snares of Satan as he continually tries to take possession of my soul.

With love Paul
St. Timonious, on June 11, 2011 at 4:08 pm said:

POST #1

I am confused. Am I supposed to flog sinners out of church or am I supposed to think of my own sins and hesitate? If you get to flog sinners, (like the banner illustrates) who gets to flog your sins? Certainly you come under the jurisdiction of your own judgment. Right? If you have ever sinned in your entire life how can you be angry with any sinners? Shouldn’t you pity them, since you want God’s pity. Why did you sin, when you did? (I expect that you’ve gone to confession at least one time in life). Did you ever sin even when you didn’t know it was a sin? What if that is happening right now? God might be very upset with you and you would think everything is OK and fine.

FATHER JOE: I doubt it is your place to flog anyone. Neither is it mine. We can warn a brother or sister about the danger that sin poses, but must always remember that we are sinners, too. The banner and title for this site is a play on words with the term “blogger,” and does so while challenging the current passive image of Jesus. Jesus is merciful, but as God, he also imposes justice. The terms of discipleship and salvation are not set by us. Jesus, unlike you and me, has the authority to offer definitive judgment. He is not a sinner but the all holy one. There is real and false compassion. I may pity others, but silence in the face of mortal sin is no demonstration of love and concern. Speaking forcibly about right and wrong might help others to make the right moral choices. This may help dispose them to Christ’s forgiveness. Anything less might forfeit contrition and the needed absolution. The way Jesus treated the money-changers might have awakened a slumbering moral sense in regard to their responsibilities before God. But our Lord also expressed righteous indignation at the corruption of his temple. Moving on, you ask the question, “Did you ever sin when you did not know it was a sin?” The answer is no. We might unknowingly commit wrongful acts, but sin requires that we know something is sinful, the matter itself is morally wrong, and that we give free consent. Peace!

POST #2

When you say “Peace!” at the end of the comment are you indignant?

FATHER JOE: No, why would you think so?

I could be reading it wrong but it sounds like you are upset and impatient.

FATHER JOE: You are reading it wrong. If I were impatient, I would not have taken the time to respond.

Because I thought anyone who gets angry at his brother is guilty of murder and anyone who calls his brother a fool is answerable to the judgment of God. I would think that instead of Peace! (exclamation mark) You would instead just say you are upset with my ignorant comments.

FATHER JOE: It seems to me that you are the one with issues and looking for a fight. You infer a false judgment against a brother in Christ and then insert a definition to “Peace!” which is the opposite from its accepted meaning. Why would you do that? I am not upset with you, just unsure why you are pursuing such a line of discussion.

Your yes should mean yes and your no should mean no, otherwise it is coming from some corrupting influence.

FATHER JOE: You are saying that I am a corrupting influence? Do you take exception to my priesthood and Catholic teachings or practices? When I talk about matters of faith I am known for being rather concise and even blunt. This is where the Scripture to which you allude would apply. Talking about oaths and veracity, our Lord told his listeners, “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37). This does not mean that we cannot elaborate or give commentary. Our Lord does not want us to be hypocrites.

You are confusing me. If you say Peace then I suppose my comments are giving you peace and I should continue to create peace for you with our discussions.

FATHER JOE: Now you are confusing me. Are you saying that you spurn the offer of peace? There is a big difference between discussion/comments and what is known as trolling. If you have come here to be nasty then you are invited to go elsewhere. If you will be civil and respectful, then you are welcomed to dialogue further. Is this too much to ask?

Why does it say in the bible he who loves much forgives much?

FATHER JOE: We see the measure for this in the sacrificial love of Jesus. His infinite love makes possible the redemption of sinners. We are called to love and forgive one another. Where there is no love, I suspect there is no mercy either.

What is the deal with the guy who hoped only a select few were defined as his neighbor?

FATHER JOE: There are some people who are easy to forgive and there are others hard to love and to forgive. Our Lord would have us go so far as to love enemies and to forgive them. There is reluctance from some to see their neighbor in those whom they do not like or who have hurt them and people they care about. If a person hurts or kills your child or spouse, forgiveness and love would be very difficult. However, with supernatural grace, even this type of mercy is possible.

Why can’t I just forgive people only seven times?

FATHER JOE: Our Lord extends this to seven times seven times, a Hebrew colloquialism, meaning without measure. Just as the Lord will always love us, we should never put limits upon love and mercy.

Wouldn’t a priest who believes in peace go way out of his way to make sure acts of violent righteous judgement weren’t misconstrued by the ignorant for the other kinds of violence? It makes me think blogging and flogging are both OK, if they are OK for a priest to kid about.

FATHER JOE: The reference to flogging is in reference to what Jesus did to the money-changers. Would you invalidate or subtract the story from the Bible? God’s Word has power and this is an important event. You are the only person so far who has communicated confusion about the terms blogging and flogging. Are you a youth? It seems that you are intent upon insulting me and forcing a negative reaction? I would ask you to pray in the Spirit and to examine your motives for coming here. You do not have to share them with me, but if you are Catholic, a visit to your parish Confessor might be in order. If I correctly, there was an issue with you at my older blog site, too. We all need to examine our consciences, admit our faults and seek divine mercy. If you do not want my peace, then at least be assured of my prayers!
Clarrisse, on June 9, 2011 at 2:39 am said:

Father,

I am a Catholic overseas and I have a Catholic boyfriend in the US who is currently waiting for his divorce with his ex to be finalized. They were not married in the Catholic Church; a judge presided over their wedding. Due to technical reasons, the divorce is still to be finalized because his ex-wife did not sign the marital dissolution agreement (MDA) three years ago. Now he is waiting for the court to decide on it (next month).

My questions:

1) Was I committing a mortal sin having an affair with him in the last five months (we both thought he was officially divorced already).

2) When his divorce will be finalized, am I free to marry him in the Catholic Church? I am single but with two kids of my own. What is our remedy if we want to get married in the Church?

One important thing to note: we haven’t met each other in person and we never engaged in anything sexual on camera over the Internet while chatting.

3) While waiting for his divorce to be finalized can we keep on chatting? We love each other so much.

Thanks in advance for your advice
Clarisse

Dear Clarisse,

Once he gets a civil divorce, he can apply for a declaration of nullity because of a lack of canonical form. The marriage does not have full standing in the Church because a Catholic is required to have his or her marriage witnessed by a priest or deacon. You are already aware of this. However, valid or not, there is a certain presumption given even to these irregular marriages. This is why the Church still requires a formal declaration from Church authorities. Society would regard this man as married and so there is the scandal of a potential adulterous relationship. A romantic relationship with another person’s husband, even if estranged, is imprudent and a matter of sin. As for the severity of sin, such depends upon a number of factors. Remember that mortal sin requires serious matter, knowledge of the wrong and free consent. If there is sexual congress then there is certainly the condition or gravity needed for mortal sin; however, such would be the case even if two people are both single. Presumption of a divorce in the instance of a dubious or invalid marriage is a mitigating factor, but I would urge that as soon as such is truly attained that no time be lost in getting the declaration. This will require filling out the appropriate form with a priest and attaching a copy of the Catholic’s baptismal certificate, marriage license and divorce decree. When the request is affirmed, you would be free to seek marriage in the Church, if that is your ultimate intention. In any case, you could then pursue chaste courtship without anxiety.

Now moving on to your particular situation, I would urge great caution. You have two children and given their ages, they are your first priority. The dynamics of your relationship with a “boyfriend” is very tenuous. Is he everything you think he is? Have you received true details about his marital situation? The Internet has great promise but it is also a forum for tremendous deception. I would plead with you not to get too serious about a person you have never physically met. Chatting on the web is not the same as talking over a dinner table or walking hand-in-hand in the park. The dynamics or chemistry of meeting people face-to-face is often very different from long-range communications. My parents met each other in church. I think that is a far safer environment. You can find soul-mates on the Internet but I think romantic mates require physical proximity and chaste intimacy. Sorry if my words seem hurtful. But I know people who have suffered lies and emotional abuse from strangers on the Internet. I hope and pray that you will have a happy story to tell.

Father Joe
Terry Garcia, on May 13, 2011 at 6:45 am said:

Dear Fr. Joe

Health in the Lord and Blessings of the Holy Spirit!

I am from the Philippines.

I have an inquiry about Saint Mary of Cleophas. Is she the same with Saint Mary of James? Some people are of the opinion that they are one and the same, but others insist that they are two different women. Do they have separate entries in the Roman Martyrology? I’ve noticed that in Spain they are considered to be the same person.

Thank you very much!

I hope you can attend to our inquiry.

Yours,
Terry Garcia
Philippines

FATHER JOE:

The old CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA states: Mary of Cleophas — “This title occurs only in John 19:25. A comparison of the lists of those who stood at the foot of the cross would seem to identify her with Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joseph (Mark 15:40; cf. Matthew 27:56).”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09748b.htm
SadWife, on April 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm said:

If a husband is diagnosed as a fixated pedophile and has demonstrated associated behaviors, is this grounds for annulment if the wife did not know of this psychological disorder at the time of the wedding?

FATHER JOE: Are you divorced? You would have to contact your parish priest and maybe a canonist to talk about the details. A person who gets married must be capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of marriage. If there is a precondition that makes this impossible, then that would obviously impact the consent and the marriage. However, not knowing the particulars, I cannot say more. Another issue would be whether he, himself, was aware of the problem. Concealing such issues would be very problematical. Peace!
George, on February 28, 2011 at 1:41 am said:

In a proper mass celebration; during the communion service, the communion is finished.

There are 50 more faithful need to receive communion, what is the litugy procedure to overcome this?

Will the consecration process take place?

Can the priest solemnly consecrate new host and distribute to the faithful?

FATHER JOE: I take it by finished, you mean the communion hosts were exhausted. Usually a priest will assess the situation during the communion process and fracture the hosts to make them go further. I also try to keep plenty of additional consecrated hosts reserved in the tabernacle. Remember, that Christ is totally present in every fragment of the host and every drop of the precious blood. If the hosts still run out, there is not much the priest can do other than apologize to the congregation, and maybe place the blame on those who came late to Mass and were not counted initially for holy communion (if such is the case). If it happens on a Sunday, the priest should let everyone know that they fulfilled their Mass obligation and recommend that they make a spiritual communion. I had a priest-teacher in seminary who thought the priest could sneak out to a side altar or to the sacristy and quickly consecrate additional hosts. Such is a practice in various Episcopalian churches. However, I suspect that such liberality is frowned upon by the Catholic Church. It is certainly not something I would ever do. The dual consecrations rightly come within the context of a complete liturgy and many Catholic liturgists would question both the legality and even the validity of such a consecration apart from the rest of the Mass.

I am reminded of a poor senile priest who entered a bakery filled with donuts and cupcakes. He got confused and uttered the words of consecration, thinking he was at Mass: “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.” While many argued that the powers of the priest would not function in such a setting, there was some debate and the archdiocese did not want to take any chances. Although deluded, the priest had the proper intention and said the correct formula. The Church bought out all the baked goods and priests were called in to consume them, just in case. One of the priests involved with this incident shared the story. It happened many years ago and the source is himself now an elderly priest.
S..., on February 10, 2011 at 8:42 am said:

The Universal Life Church offers online ordinations and make quite a production of explaining that these ordinations are legal. They offer those signing up for ordination the choice of being non-denomination or to become ordained as an ‘Independent Catholic’ minister. Some of the individuals who have been ordained via their service call themselves Father, Brother or Friar. Some purchase clerical clothing and do not always share the fact that they were ordained via this online option as opposed to going through the process of Postulant, Novitiate, and attending the Seminary. In one case… a male calling himself a Friar, posted for his photo, himself dressed in a green hooded robe. The ULC tells those choosing online ordination, that they will be part of the ‘Religious Order of St. Michael’ (see that at ulcnetwork.[dot]com)

Currently, they (the ULC) have informed (via their monastery[dot]org website) their ministers that they may now hear confessions and grant absolution and indulgences… because their board of directors has decided so.

In reading some of the comments made on the site by their ministers, some have indicated that they are addictions counselors or those who work with people in recovery from mental health issues and they have chosen to become ordained to help those people (who seek it) include spirituality into their recovery. Some of those making this claim are women. To me, this seems like a betrayal of the person they are purporting to help. Reading the ‘info’ bios posted by some of the ministers, I see that some mislead others into thinking that they are actually practicing Catholic clergy. One excerpt (verbatim, the spelling errors are not mine):

“Born and raised Catholic, but one day realized that the Catholic religin is not always right and that the church has way to much power and control over its members. I believe in the New Catholic Order, in which one may maintain the true Catholic religin and not the Catholic Church or vatican religin. I open my heart and mind to all forms of religin!”

It is one thing to obtain these ordinations to be able to marry people who do not care if their officiant is anything but a “legal” officiant… but to think that people are being misled this way makes me feel both sad and a little sick. What if we gave doctors their credentials online because they didn’t want to spend all those years on the schooling? And what if the want-to-be doctor had a disdain for the system and so wanted to claim the degree via some ‘independent’ online school and then go out and buy the scrubs and stethoscope and just tell people they’re qualified… should they be trusted with a life? Oy.

So my question then, is whether or not there is any official statement or any place where I can find a real Catholic response to this trend. I have tried to explain to one such person, that they really can’t hear confessions and grant absolution and was told by that person that I am wrong and that they can… and that I should have my Priest contact him (presumably so he can set the Priest ‘straight’?) How do I explain to this person kindly, yet so they might understand that deceiving people into believing they can forgive sins is not what a servant of God would do (and that online ordinations do not qualify in this way)? While I cannot vouch for all the people who have obtained these ordinations, I do believe the individual I know has/had good intentions when making this choice. I have struggled with how to approach this in a Christian way.

Thank you sincerely, for any help you can offer me.

FATHER JOE:

The Universal Life Church, despite their protestations, is a scam. The so-called church mixes and gathers Christians (in name only) with pagans and atheists. Ordained online, another fiction, the ministers are asked to tolerate everything but need not believe in any creed. Some of them may use the word “catholic” but this is only to confuse likely candidates for the silly certificates they sell. I suppose gullible people with challenged self-esteem might see this as a quick way to give themselves an importance they neither deserve nor for which they have worked. There is no seminary and no spiritual formation. Just send in your money, and like those fake college degrees, they send a piece of worthless paper that declares you an ordained minister. I cannot say what the legal status of such certificates might be but it is a nasty business which should be censured by law. It is certainly morally wrong and sinful. The whole affair is so pathetic that I am unsure if it has even registered on the radar of legitimate religious communities and the real Catholic authorities.
Father Joe, on February 7, 2011 at 1:18 am said:

Les

Father, I have a question and a comment.

Years ago I read a book by a priest that talked about the symbolism of the book of Revelation. I think it was a decades old book, at least. It spoke of the stars falling from Heaven as being fallen angels or Church Clergy (I forget) and the ships on the sea as the churches in the sea of humanity, of which many get destroyed. Do you know the name of the priest? Now that I am an older and better grounded Catholic, I’d like to re-read it. I lost the book years ago.

My comment is this… I became Catholic after 30 years as an atheist and agnostic. When I read comments by apparently cradle Catholics about how terrible the Church is in some ways, and negative comments about the people that have given their lives to Her, I want to say that there will always be wolves amongst the sheep. The only way to ensure you are not led astray is to hold fast to the teachings of Christ and to stay in obedience to the teachings of the Magisterium. I have never seen any teachings of the Church that were not grounded in the earliest writings and Traditions. The rest is just speculation and gossip, in my opinion. I love the Church for what it has done for me personally and for what she has done to keep Christ’s teachings alive under very trying circumstances. God bless you all and keep the Faith.

Father Joe
I am not entirely sure what that book might be. There is the apocalyptic novel, LORD OF THE WORLD (1908), written by Robert Hugh Benson.
Father Joe, on January 15, 2011 at 3:28 am said:

QUESTION & COMMENT BY THE VINYARD:

Hi, this is a question regarding your comments on the true church. I hope it is okay that we dialogue a little. I am speaking from the perspective of Methodism in Britain, is it Catholic or Evangelical? Do we balance the two? We both have sacraments, social action, shared hymns, and so forth. But you see the gravity upon the “one-true-holy-catholic-apostolic” Church. I would say that…

We hold fast to the Scriptures.

We observe the Eucharist and believe it to be a transforming ordinance.

We baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

We preach the Gospels and take this to social action; to transform society.

We ordain by the laying on of hands, etc.

I would appreciate your comments, please.

FATHER JOE:

Catholicism would regard Methodism as more Evangelical than Catholic, although it was founded by an Episcopal priest. Methodist theology was traditionally understood as something accessible through its hymns. It is also a creedal community, although revisionists have softened this element in recent years. Methodist baptism is usually recognized when members are received into the Catholic Church. There is also a good emphasis upon the Word of God. However, there are serious differences. The United States has seen a proliferation of women ministers (not calling themselves priests), and there are real debates within Methodism about this and other issues like homosexuality, abortion, divorce and remarriage, etc. John Wesley regarded abortion as murder. It is complained that Methodism is moving away from its roots.
While the Methodist Church claims the four marks of the true Church, Catholicism defines these marks very differently:

The Catholic Church sees the term of its oneness or unity in Jesus Christ who instituted the Church and gave us a visible head in Peter. While there may be accidental differences, Catholic churches everywhere teach the same truths and rely upon the same sacraments. There is also a juridical unity. To the extent that Methodism is not united to Catholicism, it lacks this oneness.

The Church is holy because Christ is holy. Holiness is understood as that otherness of God which remains as a mystery in the Church and which we receive by grace in the sacraments. Everything we need for salvation subsists in the Catholic Church.

The word “Catholic” simply means worldwide; the Church has a mission to go out to the whole world with the Gospel and to invite people into the family of faith. Just as the Church is one, she also has a universal nature. All men are called to know Christ and to be saved in her. Catholicism is never really a national church.

The word “Apostolic” refers to several things: (1) an unbroken line of succession from the apostles and through our bishops and priests; (2) a constant fidelity with apostolic teachings and practices, passing on the deposit of faith; and (3) the continuing protection of the historical Church by the Holy Spirit, particularly in regard to the teaching of faith and morals by the Pope and Magisterium.

Cranmer breeched apostolic succession for the Anglican church by his revision of the Book of Common Prayer whereby sacrifice was denied of the Mass and the office of priesthood. This breech was not repaired until it was too late and the break was passed on to Methodism. It would also be argued that the apostolic traditions have not been adequately passed down in Protestant confessions, even though the biblical texts were retained with a few omissions.
Barbara, on October 24, 2010 at 9:15 pm said:

The pix had just been given to me to take communion to my husband is the reason I took it on Good Friday. I knew that there would not be communion that day. The Holy Water reason sounds reasonable.
Barbara, on October 16, 2010 at 4:23 pm said:

Why can’t a priest bless an object on Good Friday? The article in question was a pix to bring communion to my husband.

FATHER JOE: Where would you get the host to take to your husband on Good Friday, given that the tabernacle is empty and hosts for communion are reserved privately? The prohibition of Good Friday regards the celebration of the Mass and certain other sacraments, like baptism. However, in danger of death the priest can do whatever needs to be done for a poor soul. It makes some sense that on a day where sacraments are generally not celebrated, that sacramentals like blessings would also be avoided. Honestly, I have never thought much about it and am not sure if there is a die-hard rule against blessing objects on Good Friday. Many priests like to restrict their ministry on Good Friday to matters like STATIONS OF THE CROSS, CONFESSIONS, and VENERATION OF THE CROSS WITH COMMUNION. They want us to focus upon the passion and the death of Jesus. The problem with blessings may have to do with water. There is no holy water for the fonts, for baptism or for sprinkling. There will be no holy water available in the church until the Holy Saturday Easter Vigil. Why did you wait until Good Friday for a blessing of a sacramental vessel? The rubrics say that Holy Communion can still be brought to the sick and infirm, particularly as Viaticum.
Ernest Turriziani, on October 15, 2010 at 10:26 am said:

Hello Father Joe,

I have an interest in EVP or Electronic Voice Phenomenon. This is when one uses a tape machine that records voices of the deceased. I am not interesed in doing the taping but reading the literature on this. In 1971 the first English book on the subject was published. It was called Breakthrough by Konstantin Raudive. He was a noted Catholic psychologist. In the appendix was a list of Catholic priests and scientists that lent their support for this research. Is it wrong if I study this book and subject? Please let me know. Thank you.

FATHER JOE: I am not really an authority on this proposed phenomenon. Given the many signals sent out by electronic devices, particularly in communication, it would seem probable that there might be a certain pollution. Legitimate scientific studies are one thing, but I would avoid the occult connections. I heard second-hand about an elderly woman who had become obsessed with EVP recordings. She spent hours upon hours listening to white noise and digital sound files. Some of her results were quite frightening and later other unexplained phenomenon afflicted her home. It was suggested that her obsession had invited something malicious or demonic that was mimicking the dead. I would proceed with caution. Definitely I would argue against the pursuit of two-way communication with ghosts. Be satisfied with intercessory prayer to the saints.

Thank you for your reply on EVP research. I never have nor will I do any recordings myself. I only read on this subject. Is it OK if I read on this subject, or is that bad as well? Thanks.

FATHER JOE: I am not one afraid of reading or research.
Ng'ash, on October 14, 2010 at 7:47 pm said:

Hi Father

In the PRAYER TO ST. JOSEPH, it says, “. . . obtain for me from your divine son all spiritual blessings THROUGH, JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. . .’ Is Jesus not “his divine son”?! And why through Jesus to Joseph [given that] Jesus is the Lord? Are those words not mixed up/controversial or it is that I [am having] a language difficulty?

Please, Fr. JOE.

THE COMPLETE NOVENA PRAYER:

Oh, St. Joseph, whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt before the throne of God, I place in you all my interests and desires.

Oh, St. Joseph, do assist me by your powerful intercession, and obtain for me from your divine Son all spiritual blessings, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. So that, having engaged here below your heavenly power, I may offer my thanksgiving and homage to the most loving of Fathers.

Oh, St. Joseph, I never weary contemplating you, and Jesus asleep in your arms; I dare not approach while He reposes near your heart. Press Him in my name and kiss His fine head for me and ask Him to return the Kiss when I draw my dying breath. St. Joseph, Patron of departing souls, pray for us. Amen.

FATHER JOE:

Hello Ng’ash,

This is not one of my favorite prayers. Too often it is associated with prayer chains (which we are warned not to break). It is essentially a novena prayer in which special requests are made. Your confusion is essentially one of LANGUAGE or translation. The divine Son is Jesus and prayers often include the formula, “Through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Joseph is honored as the patron saint for the Church and is a trusted INTERCESSOR to Jesus. We ask him to pray for and with us to the Lord.

Peace, Father Joe
Father Joe, on September 14, 2010 at 10:36 am said:

I recently added this comment to a FACEBOOK discussion:

TO BURN OR NOT TO BURN KORANS… That is a question? There are some very difficult issues here. While many of us are rightly offended by the burning of books (too much like the Nazis) and religious intolerance or bigotry (burning the Koran or Bible or desecration of the Eucharist); we also prize the civil liberty of freedom of speech (which includes symbolic actions). Of course, the gasoline that is added to the fire of this particular debate is the argument over what is the true face of Islam? Is moderate Islam the norm or the exception? Nations where there is a Muslim majority often seem opposed to the religious and civil liberties we take for granted. Christians and other non-Muslims are heavily persecuted or forced underground. Mosques are being built all over the U.S. but just try to build a new church in Saudi Arabia… it is pretty near impossible. Do we sacrifice freedom of expression to the fear of Islamic retribution for acts that militants find offensive? I would oppose the burning of Korans out of human respect, but if we are only motivated by fear, then we open the door to future manipulation by the enemies of freedom. There are many players in this terrible business, and no one is playing by the same rules.
Lady Godless, on September 14, 2010 at 1:19 am said:

What if you knew that the person in question didn’t want to live? Would that change anything? (I mean with regard to the life-saving scenario, not the proactively killing baby Hitler scenario.)

FATHER JOE: Let me try to get my head around the question. I think you are asking, “If you save someone’s life, in what ways do you become responsible for that person if he or she does not want to live?” Well, suicide is still regarded as a crime, although if you are successful, there can be no arrest, trial or imprisonment. You can save a person who does not want to live, but if they maintain this attitude, it would be impossible to infuse a joy of living or to have certitude of saving such a person again in the future. Yes, I think there is an obligation to atleast try in saving people from themselves and the harm’s way where they place themselves. Life is a precious gift and I am grieved by the reckless attitude some take toward it. Ultimately, it is the individual who is the responsible for his own life. We can try and make a difference, but the notion of a “brother’s keeper” does not mean the same as a keeper at a zoo who locks up his charges in cages to protect them and the rest of us. There is only so much we can do for others and then we must let go. Ultimately, we cannot save those who refuse to be saved. Hopefully through discourse and compassion, we can bring people to a conversion of heart and mind. Catholicism teaches that there is value in life, even when it is difficult or seems senseless.
Meg, on September 13, 2010 at 10:44 pm said:

Hi Fr. Joe,

There is a Christian music band and the lead singer I went to high school with. He has a song that he has taken from the Litany of Humility prayer and one of the Psalms and combined. In his explanation of his songs, he states erroneously that this litany is a prayer written by Mother Teresa. I have been devoted to this prayer for years and (I’m sure you know:) it was written by Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val. It says in the prayer book I have it is for private devotion only. I am sure in his circle of protestant churches, no one would ever know the difference, but it bothers me a little that he would use the prayer and not do any research. I don’t really want to say anything for fear of sounding like a “know it all,” but I have tried to forget it and it still bugs me a little. Should he have gotten permission to use this prayer for public use? His son is on itunes, but the band is more locally famous and not national at his point. Would you say anything if you were me?

FATHER JOE: Actually the Litany of Humility is fairly well known, as is its authorship. I do not see why you cannot tell them. However, if you are shy in doing so, just send them an anonymous note with the information. A number of people have erroneously atttributed it to Mother Teresa. You are right, it was written by Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930) Secretary of State of Saint Pope Saint Pius X.
Lady Godless, on September 12, 2010 at 10:40 pm said:

Father Joe, if you save someone’s life, in what ways do you become responsible for the consequences of that? For what befalls the person in the future, for what they do later, etc?

FATHER JOE: As far as I am aware, Catholic moralists would say thay if you saved someone’s life, you cannot be held strictly culpable for what they might or might not do. Jesus interceded for the woman caught in adultery. Instead of being stoned, Jesus dismisses her with the command to go and to avoid this sin in the future. But does she? We do not know. There is a time-travel scenerio that touches your question. Knowing what atrocities that Hitler would perpetrate, would it be moral for a time-traveler to travel back into history and kill the baby Adolf in the cradle? My position would be that such an execution would be murder.
Dan Conte, on September 12, 2010 at 2:44 am said:

I noticed a link on your website to the the site “christusrex.org.” While it looks Catholic and contains many church documents it is actually neo-nazi propaganda site. I don’t think any catholics should associate themselves with this anti-semitic organization.

Thank you

FATHER JOE: I checked what you wrote and I also have reservations about the host site. However, my link was to an orthodox Catholic sub-website on the Mass and Scriptures operated by a brother priest in the Archdiocese of Washington. Given that his blog is itself linked to this resource, and the matter leaves me uneasy, I have deleted the link to the older site. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Shalom.
Vonna, on August 16, 2010 at 8:46 pm said:

Question about a possible new Marian dogma:

I would really be very interested Father in your discussing the movement of the instituting the 5th Marian Dogma of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix. I am searching for answers to this and have asked my own Priest and he guided me to some literature sources, however I, being an avid follower of your blog, would love to know your thoughts and words about it.

Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely,
Vonna
Bloomington, IN

FATHER JOE:

I think any such definition is highly unlikely. A number of years ago it was rumored that Pope John Paul II was considering a solemn definition of Mary as Co-redemptrix. Such Marian titles were briefly mentioned in the Vatican II decree on the Church, but not defined. Orthodox and Protestant groups were not happy, largely because of a false interpretation of such titles. It was Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who was highly influential in getting the previous Pope to back off and simply release an encyclical about Mary but without a new Marian dogma. Purportedly, he was concerned that the devotional title would be misunderstood and cause more unnecessary doctrinal fracturing at a time when we were making some headway with the Orthodox-Catholic dialogues.

Mary participates in the redemptive work of her Son precisely because of her role as the sinless Mother. Her “fiat” is not limited to the Annunciation but stretches throughout her entire life. She gave us the Christ, not only in her womb and at Bethlehem but also upon Calvary. The Pieta expresses this nicely. She holds in her arms the body of her crucified Son. Although not an ordained priest, she was priestly in offering up her Son for many adopted sons and daughters. The Mother of the Redeemer becomes the Mother of all the redeemed. She says YES to God, not simply for her sake, but for ours. However, any understanding of Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix is conditional and secondary to the role of Jesus as our unique Savior. Catholicism teaches, strictly speaking, that there is one Mediator and Redeemer and that is Jesus Christ.

As can be noted, there are serious theological questions involved. Dogmas require a high level of certainty. Popes do not have the power to create new dogmas at will, despite the fads of popular piety. Dogmas of faith must emerge from the deposit of faith as things always believed. Given the development of doctrine, there may still be some confusion and debate. Further, they must merge from the universal practice of faith or sense of the faithful. Except for various rosary guilds and Marian societies, it is less clear that any new dogmas about Mary would have such widespread support in the body of the Church. The official teachings about Mary are as follows: [431 AD] Mary is the Mother of God (protecting the identity of her son); [649 AD] Mary is a perpetual virgin (before, during and after Christ’s birth); [1854] Mary is the Immaculate Conception (a sinless vessel for the All Holy One); and [1950] Mary is assumed body and soul into heaven (she is the first fruit of our hope in Christ’s resurrected glory). The first two were proclaimed by councils and the latter two by papal solemn proclamations. The dates are a bit of a misnomer in that these doctrines were already elements of the Church’s faith inheritance. Strictly speaking, there are no brand new revelations or doctrines.

While the discussion has largely been around the teaching of Mary as Co-redemptrix, many are adding to it Mediatrix of Graces and Advocate. The argument is that if Christ is the head of the mystical body and we are the body, then Mary must be the neck. Thus, it would seem then that all graces which pass down from Christ must pass through Mary to us. We must be careful that analogies are not stretched too far. The notion of Advocate is an elaboration upon saintly intercession but arguing for necessity that all our supplications flow back to the triune God through Mary. It seems to me that an understanding of Mary cooperating with her Son and offering him at Calvary is already a part of the Church’s patrimony. However, I have heard faithful and scholarly clergy argue that the latter two titles are largely devotional. They would play the devil’s advocate and ask in each instance, is it true?

Does absolutely all grace from God pass through Mary to us? Certainly Jesus comes into the world through Mary, and she still gives us her Son, but ALL grace? Are there Scriptural supports? Can this teaching be traced back through history and sacred tradition? Might the word Mediatrix confuse simple souls in respects to Christ’s unique role as our one Mediator and bridge to the Father?

The Scriptures speak about Christ as our great Advocate to the Father. Does EVERY prayerful petition pass first to Mary so that it might be delivered to Christ? Is this really true? Is this something that most of the faithful consciously believe? One somewhat uncharitable critic argued that this makes Mary into some kind of celestial postal worker or operator at the heavenly switchboard.

In any case, I can only offer my opinion. I always humbly submit to the Church and the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit.