Ask a Priest

5,433 Responses

Eduardo, on February 11, 2013 at 3:10 pm said:

Fr. Joe,

I wanted to know how today’s news of Pope Benedict XVI resigning fits in with the Book of Revelation.

FATHER JOE: I would not look for any connection.

I remember reading at some point that after Pope John Paul II there would be a Pope who would serve for a short period of time, and then the next Pope would be in place for a long period, in which the Church would experience an increase in faith and the faithful. It is after this longer-serving Pope that we are supposed to encounter another period in which 1/3 of the Church will leave and we will experience “one final” challenge. It is after such point in history that we encounter the anti-Christ and the end of times. Is this an accurate interpretation?

Sorry, I do not recall where I read this, but as a devout Catholic I always seek the Catholic perspective.

FATHER JOE: You are probably making reference to an interpretation of the so-called Prophecies of Malachy. They are regarded as forgeries and the Church places no credence in them.
SHERYL, on February 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm said:

I think it’s disgusting that so much veneration is given to Mary and that she’s accredited with having ultra-strong intercessory powers. And WHY does the Catholic church so often go against what Christ or the bible says? There is supposedly ONE Mediator between God and man – there is NO NEED for a “mediatrix” – yet the RCC goes ahead and names one anyway. I don’t care how they try to sugarcoat it, Mary is definitely worshiped by Catholics and that is idolatry!

FATHER JOE: No, there is no idolatry in genuine veneration of Mary. Nothing here is sugar-coated, although I am often surprised at how people who say they follow Jesus can display such disdain toward his Mother. Do not be surprised to find that Jesus is disgusted with you. Jesus and Mary are of one heart, but her influence at the wedding feast of Cana is a significant sign of her unique role in his life and ministry. She tells him the wine has run out. “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.’ His mother said to the servers, ‘Do whatever he tells you’” (John 2:4-5). There is no argument. She turns to the stewards and tells them to do whatever he says. He changes water into wine. Today she tells us also to obey her Son. She knows that by grace Jesus can change sinners into saints. Christ is indeed our Mediator. Any role given to Mary, even under the title “mediatrix” is dependent and empowered by her Son. She cooperates with him. She is forever “the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). When children grow up, a mother never stops being a mother. Mary is eternally the Mother of Jesus. Indeed, her title as Mother of God defends the divine identity of her Son, even though she is entirely a blessed creature. Jesus loved her and we imitate him in loving and honoring her. This veneration is not divine worship.
Fredo, on February 10, 2013 at 2:40 am said:

Dear Father Joe, is the book of Genesis meant to be taken literally or figuratively.

FATHER JOE: Both, because history and myth are weaved together. Both convey here the truth that God wants us to have.

I know there has been debates over this in the past, even before Charles Darwin published his book on “The Origin of Species,” for exanple, Saint Augustine of Hippo favored a more figurative translation of Genesis. Is good to know this debate has been going on even before Charles Darwin published his book and not after, which strengthens my opinion that the Church is infallible. Anyways how can it be possible for the Church to accept Genesis as figurative, wouldn’t this undermine one of the most fundamental concepts of Christianity, this being that all fell through Adam, the first man, but just as all fell through one (Adam), all will rise through one (Christ).

FATHER JOE: We had first parents and they fell by the commission of Original Sin.

According to the theory of evolution there really was no first human being we just always were, so technically a Neanderthal could be considered a human being.

FATHER JOE: Given the evidence of their civilization, Neanderthals were human beings. If evolution were the manner that God employed to place us on this planet, there still would have been first parents. Not all evolutionists strictly adhere to Darwin’s view of a material soul. The soul is directly infused by God. It is immaterial. We are made aware of the soul’s presence by the operation of the intellect and will. There is also a unique introspection.

If there really was no first man than how can original sin be? If the theory of evolution is true at what point is the soul created or given by God?

FATHER JOE: Pope Pius XII has already answered this problem many years ago. When a body appeared that was capable of housing an immortal soul, God in his providence infused it and we had the first man, yes, even if his body were derived from a certain proto-human.

What happens to those near humans who didn’t have a soul.

FATHER JOE: What happens to your cat or dog? At the very least their substantial form continues to exist as a paradigm in the mind of God.

In sum my question would be, how can evolution be in harmony with Christianity? I know faith has its place but so does reason, I find it hard to believe in a young earth. I have seen both sides of the coin evolution and creationism, but am not so convinced by creationism. Also if the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally then what about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph.

FATHER JOE: See my earlier response. We are talking about real people.
Grace, on February 8, 2013 at 10:28 pm said:

I am troubled by the reading for Monday, November 19 that offers an admonition to the people who have suffered long and greatly, done everything for Jesus, yet have lost their love. Father, what does this mean? Thank you so much.

FATHER JOE: False teachers have come into the midst of the community. They have been exposed but unfortunately the harmony and friendship between them has been compromised. John is telling them to reconcile, to restore the cohesive loving environment and to their earlier good works.
Ted, on February 8, 2013 at 6:17 am said:

How can the Vatican help the poor?

FJ: “Caritas a confederation of 164 of the Catholic Church’s relief aid, economic development and social service organisations, is one of the largest charities in the world, operating in over 200 countries and territories around the world. 24 million people around the world at any given moment, employing a total of one million people, including 600,000 volunteers.”
L.W. Dickel, on February 6, 2013 at 11:18 am said:

Hello, I am an ignorant professional spammer who loves foul words because I cannot handle a civil debate. I am too stupid to believe in God and so I just blaspheme to irritate believers. I even make up my own gospels, although if they are inspired, then it is by the devil, who I figure for another fiction. I guess I will learn the truth when I find myself burning in hell someday.

Here is a sample of my perverted gospel: “And then Jesus came upon his disciples and said, ‘What is this [deleted] I have been hearing about a human sacrifice for sins? Who in the [deleted] hell came up with that Neanderthal [deleted]? What are we, living in the [deleted] Stone Age! Blood sacrifice! Are you [deleted] kidding me? Listen, brethren, thou can takest that pathetic, immoral, sadistic, evil, sickening, disgusting pile of Cro-Magnon donkey [deleted] and shove it straight up thy [deleted] [deleted]!’”—The Lost Gospel

There you have it, not too creative, but as I said I’m pretty dumb. I failed grammar school but got a job as the janitor’s assistant. I got fired though. I got caught sniffing the cleaning chemicals to get high. I guess it killed brain cells, not that I had many with which to begin.

I am too ugly to have a girlfriend so I put a wig on and kiss myself in the mirror. I guess I should get a life instead of poking around causing trouble on other people’s blogs. I would be a pretty lonely guy if it were not for my pet fish. He is my best friend. He is my only friend. That is okay by me because I hate people. Never taking a bath I stink pretty bad, too. But the fish does not care.
Ted, on February 6, 2013 at 2:43 am said:

Dear Father Joe,

how does the Vatican help the poor people around the world?

FATHER JOE: Much of the Church’s work is done through Catholic Charities and our many missionary endeavors. The Church follows the corporal works of mercy. The Vatican State is very small. Peter’s Pence alone takes in around $70 million annually for charity work. But when you add all the charity work of the Catholic Church worldwide the number becomes staggering. Areas of work include: education, healthcare, food and water, assistance with resources, legal intervention, etc. Catholic Charities is the largest charity organization in the world apart from the U.S. government.
Eric S., on February 6, 2013 at 2:31 am said:

Again, Thank you Father Joe for your honesty and guidance.
Take care and God Bless!
Grace, on February 6, 2013 at 1:14 am said:

What I was trying to say was after a reading, or at the beginning of mass why do we all say “and with your spirit”, or “thanks be to God.” Why do we all respond in the same words every time. Is it important to say the same thing every time? Thanks and sorry for the earlier confusion.

FATHER JOE: Like the Jews of old (and the Passover that Jesus made his own) people often resort to ritual and patterns of prayer or worship. We even do this at secular events, like singing the national anthem before a game and the manner of participation in a courtroom. The responses at Mass express both our personal and corporate participation. Believers dialogue with the priest using a set formula as they worship God. It gives meaning and order to our prayer. One of the more important responses is AMEN. It is an affirmation. We make all that the priest says and does our own. It literally means “truly” or “surely” it is so. Indeed, this unity is with Christ who offers himself as an acceptible oblation to the Heavenly Father.
Grace, on February 5, 2013 at 8:57 pm said:

Father, I have recently been asked a question about my faith and after much research I still can’t find the answer to the question. Here is the question: When people respond to the priest why do they all say the same thing? Why is this important?

FATHER JOE: I cannot make out what you are trying to say.
Eric S., on February 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm said:

Question 1 – When we go to Heaven, will we still have free will? If so, will we still “know” evil or will our knowledge of evil (ontologically and epistemologically) and our concupiscence be washed away in Purgatory?

FATHER JOE: We make our choices in time. That is why we are capricious and wavering. The angels as spiritual beings make theirs outside of time. Thus, their act of will is final. The time of testing is now. We will still have freedom of will in the kingdom to come but humanity will abide in conformity or harmony with the divine will. Acquiring the Greatest Good, God, there is nothing more that we could want or need. True freedom is found in pleasing God. Disobedience is a misuse of freedom; indeed, it places us into spiritual bondage. What is not yet undone (concupiscence) will be healed. Glorified persons sharing in Christ’s risen life will no longer endure an internal struggle or a disorder of the passions.

Question 2 – Occasionally when I confess my sins I stumble on words and forget or leave out details. When I’m given absolution, are these forgotten details forgiven as well? Or should I bring up the sin that was previously confessed plus whatever details were left out during my next confession?

FATHER JOE: The confessor does not need every detail. If it does not change the basic sin confessed then I would not worry about it. However, if you withhold something which changes the nature of the sin, then this should be brought to the sacrament. For instance, a person might confess to sexual indiscretion. The sin is serious but the gravity and counsel is further determined by other details. One of these is our state of life. Are you a priest, religious, single or married person? Another is whether a sin constitutes aberrational or addictive behavior. Some commit the same sins again and again. How a sin touches others is also important. There is a difference in the counseling and penance given to an engaged couple who had a moment of weakness and that offered to those practicing casual or general promiscuity. Was it consensual or was there coercion and force? Acts also have consequences. Diseases are spread and people are hurt. One sin can knock over whole strings of sinful dominoes. When possible, especially for matters like theft, there may be the need for restitution. If you have adequately confessed a sin, you should let it go. As our Lord said, “Sufficient for a day is its own evil” (Matthew 6:34).

After confession we’re supposed to rejoice. I thank God, however sometimes I don’t feel like rejoicing and I don’t feel like a weight has been lifted. Instead, I think about the distant future where the sins I have confessed are still a stain on the memory of my life, even though they’ve been forgiven.

FATHER JOE: Let me give you the first half of verse 34 in the before quoted Gospel of Matthew. Jesus tells us, “Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself.”

Maybe one day my children or grandchildren will think of me as a good and religious man, but if they learned of my history then they may be disgusted or drift away from me or from the Faith. Without Christ’s Church and His Sacrament of Reconciliation, I would be in dire trouble and a lost cause. I still have a terribly hard time wrapping my mind around this phenomenal Grace of Reconciliation. Why? I was told recently by one of our Parish Priests that it may be my Pride that is not allowing me to forgive myself of my past sins. Also, this Pride blocks my understanding of the Mercy and Power of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. In the book of Jeremiah, God talks of the New Covenant and how He will forgive our iniquity and remember it no more. I understand this New Covenant is Christ, but the “remember it no more”, is what I don’t fully understand.

Question 3 – Isn’t there restitution on Earth and in Purgatory for confessed Sins – e.g. we aren’t just forgiven, but we must also provide recompense for Our Sins as well?

We do penance, not just as an obligation of Confession, but of our own devising. Some give up meat on Friday or some other day. Others make their daily work an offering to God. There are many penitential practices and such does indeed remit temporal punishment due to sin. But even the poor soul in purgatory rejoices because he will see God. Not forgiving ourselves when God has granted us mercy is a failure to have confidence in God’s power to forgive and heal us. If it makes things any better for you, know right off that you are a failure and you are undeserving. We all are. That is the significance of our plight as sinners. Salvation is a gift we do not and could not deserve or merit apart from Christ. The ultimate price was paid by the Cross. Our Lord made infinite satisfaction for sin.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (Paul speaks of sexual immorality within Corinth). In verses 3-5 Paul pronounces judgment on one Corinthian who has committed incest and wishes the other Corinthians to expel him from the Church and to deliver him to Satan.

Question 4 – What does Paul mean? I understand the severity of this sin, but it’s the pronouncement of Paul’s judgment (not chastisement, but judgment) on the accused Corinthian that confuses me. Is Paul exercising apostolic authority to condemn/judge or loose/bind? In this case has he bound the Corinthian to mortal condemnation and execution? Or is he physically expelling him from the Church and delivering him back to the Pagan world (Satan)? If the guilty Corinthian were to return, with true and honest contrition, would Paul accept him back in the Church at Corinth?

FATHER JOE: St. Paul is an apostle and uses the very same apostolic authority that we find in present-day bishops to reprimand sin and to keep good order in the Church. St. Paul is not usurping the role of God in damning someone. We leave such judgment to God. However, using his episcopal juridical authority, he officially censures or excommunicates the man living with his step-mother. We read, “I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus: when you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” Do not get caught up in the ancient colloquialisms like “destruction of the flesh.” Censures serve many purposes: (1) warning others; (2) motivating the sinner to repent; and (3) protecting the believing community. Mortal sin is still incurred no matter whether there is a Church censure or not. This particular act of excommunication also emphasizes that salvation in Christ also requires some form of unity with the Mystical Body, the Church.
Eric S., on February 5, 2013 at 2:14 pm said:

Again, Thank you Father Joe for answering my questions.
And yes, the question “If Paul were transported in time to a parish today, would he hear Confessions and grant absolution the same as any parish priest or would he be sterner?”, was purely for argument sake — to see if there were any differences in the way the Apostles and Modern Parish Priests grant Absolution or if they were in harmony. Thank you for answering my questions.
Take care Father Joe and God Bless you!
Eric S., on February 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm said:

Question 1 – Has the Church’s absolution of certain sins changed over the ages?

FATHER JOE: While the ministry of reconciliation is given to the apostles and the Church, the form and the parameters of the sacrament of Penance has developed over the years. Many early Christians believed in an imminent Parousia (Second Coming) and judgment. However, as this was proven not to be the case, a problem developed about baptized Christians falling back into sin. The issue of “traitors” who compromised themselves in the persecutions of pagan Rome was a particular problem. Baptism forgave all sins but the graces given by it could be lost through serious sin. Baptism could not be repeated. The Church began to offer Second Penance. After a period of special mortification, a person might be restored to full membership in the Church. This was more than saying five Hail Mary prayers and an Our Father. Such penance could take years. As a sign of humility and repentance, a person might be stretched out before the doorpost of the church or meeting place for worship. Congregants would step over the body of the person seeking readmission. Later there would be a Confession before the church gathering where the priest would grant God’s mercy. Certain Eastern rites still have the penitent whisper to the priest while standing before assembled worshippers. The Irish Pententials practiced a private form of the sacrament that many found more conducive to their reconciliation with the Church and Christ. It became the norm in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council.

Question 2 – For example, a certain sin confessed today may be forgiven, but that same sin confessed 2,000 years ago may have led to excommunication, public humiliation, condemnation or possibly execution?

FATHER JOE: As I said, there has been development in the form and extent of the sacrament. The grounds for excommunication have certainly changed. The remaining automatic censures include attacking the person of the Pope and for abortion. Most priests have faculties from their bishops to remove the censure incurred by abortion; but this was not always the case. Only a few years ago such cases had to be referred directly to the bishop or to the Dominicans. The Church never really executed people because of sins. However, political entanglements might have led civil authority to use such measures since religion was seen as the glue that held society together.

Question 3 – If Paul were transported in time to a parish today, would he hear Confessions and grant absolution the same as any parish priest or would he be sterner?

FATHER JOE: You do know that this is somewhat a nonsense question, because such is unlikely to happen. However, for the sake of argument, I am confident that St. Paul as an apostle would (like any bishop of Holy Mother Church) comply with the prescriptions of the day.

Question 4 – I don’t know, but I can only assume he would be shocked at our repetitive sins and would immediately take to the streets and condemn the casual and secular nature of society today. What has changed to grant us these “extreme” graces of forgiveness nowadays?

FATHER JOE: He would be appalled at many elements of our society; however, I do not believe he would find himself in opposition to the Church. It was to Peter and the Church that the keys were given. The Church has the authority to loosen or hold bound. Never before in the history of the world had God given such authority to men: the power to forgive sins. It demonstrates clearly the continuing reality of the incarnation: Christ made flesh but also Christ in the body of the Church and her ministers. St. Paul knew human nature and even talked about his thorn in the flesh. The problem we face is not so much the repetitive nature of sin but the refusal to admit guilt and to trust in God’s mercy.

Well, thank you very much Father Joe. Again, I apologize for the length of the message and all of the questions. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Father Joe! Take care and God Bless you!

FATHER JOE: You are welcome.
JOI, on February 3, 2013 at 9:49 pm said:

THANK YOU so very much for your response. It’s been brought to the Lord in confession, Thank you and may God Bless you.
Jonathan, on February 1, 2013 at 4:14 pm said:

“Again and again, a relic or image of St. Gerard is not a talisman. It has no magic. We do not superstitiously see any power in the sacramental.”

You say this, but does not the Catholic laymen holding a “relic” of St. Gerard and hoping to be pregnant see some gain in doing so?

FATHER JOE:

There really is no talking to you. Of course there is gain in prayer, intercessory or otherwise. We trust that the saints pray for and with us but it is God who answers our prayers. Any denial of the efficacy of prayer is a denial of divine intervention in the lives of men. Your problem goes a lot deeper than inserting parallels with ancient paganism to Catholicism; you are demonstrating an actual antagonism to Christianity, itself. You attack with ignorant propaganda, but what do you really believe? I am curious. Except for what you oppose, is there anything you really propose?

Do you follow the Hebrew Sabbath or the Christian Sunday Observance?

Do you believe in any institutional and historical church or is all religion privatized? Is there any ministerial structure to your religion or cult?

Do you believe in an immortal soul? Do you believe in heaven and hell?

Do you believe in angels and how would you identify Michael?

Is Jesus a divine or human person? Does he have a complete human nature or does he pretend to be a man and to suffer and die?

What does the resurrection say about our destiny? Do you believe in the resurrection of the body?

Do you believe in the Trinity? What is the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? What is this threeness and how does it relate to ONE God?

What must a person do or believe to encounter salvation?

Who composed and compiled the biblical canon and books? Where did you get your bible and did the translators share your doctrinal beliefs and belong to your church? Can you fluently read Greek and Hebrew?

Have you read the universal Catholic Catechism from cover to cover or only ignorant and bigoted books about Catholicism?

Do you give any importance to water baptism?

Did you call your instructors in school by the title “teacher” or “master”? Did you call your male parent by the label “father”? If your hand has caused you to sin, have you cut it off? If your eye has caused you to sin, have you plucked it out?

Do you have photographs, a television or any device with images in your home? Is there any statuary? If the Hebraic prohibition is absolute, then how do you rationalize it? What about the images on your computer? How much time do you spend watching TV or working on the computer, more than prayer and religious study? Are you worshipping idols?

What is the Bible for you, inspired or a book-religion idol?

How many poor have you fed and clothed and sheltered? How does it make you feel that the Catholicism you hate seems to love and help people more than you do?

While some of these questions border the silly, they are no more ridiculous than some of your assertions. I have tried to respond to your spiritual blindness; however, I suspect that you will not want to respond in kind about your own postured Christianity. A religion of hate that only defines itself by what it opposes does not offer very much.

Does not the Church itself ascribe “spheres” of influence to each “Patron Saint”?

FATHER JOE: The Church gives us suggestions about saints as special patrons, but only so that we will keep them in mind, take edification from their stories and not neglect our prayerful solidarity with them.

Isn’t that why they are called “Patrons,” which means to champion a cause?

FATHER JOE: Often a saint has championed a cause by the meritorious witness of his or her life. You would demean the quality of their heroic discipleship. Saints are windows to the divine. They allow the light of Christ to shine upon us throughout human history. They show us that there are many roads or callings to walk in the one way of Christ.

Is not the Church then saying they have influence over that cause? How is that different from the Patron Demigods/Gods who had influence over various spheres?

FATHER JOE: No more influence is implied than any that might be expressed in prayer to God. The saints and angels have no divine power of their own. They are only creatures. They can love us and pray for us. However, we must still be disposed to God’s grace and mercy. Catholic doctrine is very clear about this. God always initiates and responds. We can make supplications, render thanks and praise, or make an act of contrition with genuine sorrow for sin. However, no one and nothing can ever force God’s hand. There is no substantial comparison between the saints and the false deities of old. Having said this, New Age religion falls into superstition with a corrupted angelolatry and worship of vague forces. However, even if it mimics or steals Christian elements, it is not genuine Catholicism.

Venus Patron Goddess of Fertility –> St. Gerard, Patron Saint of Fertility

FATHER JOE: St. Gerard is a far cry from the mythical goddess of love, Venus. He cared for his widowed mother and assisted the poor. Look at this prayer: “O good St Gerard, powerful intercessor before God and wonder worker of our day, confidently I call upon you and seek your aid. On Earth you always fulfilled God’s designs; HELP ME NOW TO DO THE HOLY WILL OF GOD. IMPLORE THE MASTER OF LIFE, from whom all paternity proceeds, to render me fruitful in offspring, that I may raise up children to God in this life, and in the world to come, heirs to the Kingdom of His Glory. Amen.” Notice the gravity is upon Almighty God, not the humble saint.

Mars, God of Soldiers & Warfare –> St. Andrew, Patron Saint of Soldiers

FATHER JOE: You mean St. Adrian. He is the patron of soldiers because of his great bravery. He was dismembered and finally beheaded. He is remembered for his endurance of torture not because of any love of war.

Mercury, Patron God of Tradesmen –> St. Joseph, Patron Saint of Carpentry

FATHER JOE: St. Joseph the Worker is remembered because like all good men he labored long and hard to take care of his family. He is the guardian of the Holy Family and the protector of Jesus and Mary. He is also regarded as a special patron over the Church, the mystical body of Christ. There is nothing of worship although we pay him special honor as the foster father of Christ. Jesus kept the commandments and honored his mother and father. We do the same and also love Joseph and Mary.

Isn’t this too much of a pattern for you to ignore? Or will you hold to Seminary teachings and believe every excuse that the Church makes for such “traditions” as you called them, and which you admitted have no scriptural basis.

FATHER JOE: I am surprised that you can ignore so many facts that strip your arguments to shreds. Interestingly enough, St. Paul did not shy away from arguing that a pagan shrine to an unknown God was being revealed to the Gentiles by the Jews and the revelation of Jesus Christ. “Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: ‘You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you'” (Acts 17:22-23). I have recited more Scripture here in this debate than you have. You have merely parroted lies and deceptions from anti-Catholics who hate the Church. I will keep my traditions, thank you, including praying for fools and trying to love and forgive those who persecute and hate us.
Juliette, on January 30, 2013 at 11:56 pm said:

Hello Father, I have a really close friend who is bipolar and gets moody a lot. Recently, he found out he was gay in a relationship with another of my friends. He did not want anyone to find out, but his mother found out. He told me yesterday and with his mood swings, it wasn’t going very well. He was very derpressed that his mother found out and he used to contemplate suicide so I don’t know if he’s thinking about it again. His mother also didn’t tell him how she found out and she wants to send him for counselling to try and cure his homosexuality. He told me he doesn’t want to be cured of it. What should I do?

FATHER JOE: Remember that you are only hearing your friend’s side of things. His mental situation is seriously suspect if he only just “recently… found out he was gay” (he did not know already?), is bipolar with mood swings, depressed and suicidal. I suspect that his mother wants him to see a professional counselor for many reasons and I would suggest you urge your friend to take his mother’s advice. Medicine and psychiatric counseling is often crucial for the bipolar condition and might save his life.
Jonathan, on January 30, 2013 at 5:23 am said:

I said how is [when Catholics bow down and hold images of the “Patron Saint of Fertility,” St. Gerard, hoping to get pregnant, how is that different from Roman Pagans holding images of the “Patron Goddess of Fertility” Venus?] Your reply only said you venerate saints the same as the photograph of a dear friend (this is ludicrous, as you don’t hold that photo hoping to get pregnant).

FATHER JOE: I think it is important that you look at my complete response to this query: “The differences are important. First, we venerate images just as we would the photograph of a dear friend. A serviceman in Iraq who kisses the photo of his wife is not worshipping the picture but remembering with love his beloved who is physically absent but in his heart. Second, we ask for intercession and prayer from a saint, but there is no magic or wishing upon a secondary deity or demiurge. Third, we cannot compel God or force his hand; while all prayer is directed to God, we also submit to his providence. His will be done.” It should be added that you obviously do not understand the full scope of the human heart. Along with memories, people often connect hopes and dreams to the photographs of loved ones, including a desire for a family. We also pray for their safety or the repose of souls. Notice how often photographs are left at memorial sites for the dead. Similarly, we use images of saints to assist memory or to help direct our prayer, but the saints are not worshipped. This focuses upon the real gravity of your question or (in truth) your anti-Catholic accusation.

Is it not true that each “patron saint” is a “patron” of a “sphere” of life, such as fertility, warfare, or even patrons of countries (St. Patrick, etc.)? You still have not clarified where there is any scriptural basis for this and how Roman Patron Saints differs from the old Roman Patron Gods. If you just swap out the word “saint” for “god” it’s basically the same thing, cleverly disguised.

FATHER JOE:

First, Catholicism is not a “sola scriptura” Church and neither is genuine Christianity. Second, the patronage of saints is either reflective of quaint cultural traditions or because the Church has designated certain causes for intercession to particular saints. It does not mean that we are absolutely limited to this or that saint for a specific need. It does not mean that the saint has any magical or spiritual power apart from God. We might ask our friends among the saints to pray for and with us, but as I said before, all prayer and worship is ultimately directed toward Almighty God. Your bigotry forces upon you a certain intellectual challenge in regard to the full scope of prayer. You would permit an individualistic and personal prayer directly between YOU and God. However, this is all that you would allow. Such is reflective of a defective appreciation of the Church and a complete renunciation of the communion of the saints. This is why you reject corporate prayer and worship, intercessory prayer, indulgenced prayer and the absolute need for a Church (for salvation).

Here are some important verses that speak to the Catholic faith in this matter (remember we view the saints as alive and as sharers in Christ’s resurrection):

1 Timothy 2:1-6: “First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all.”

1 Corinthians 3:5-9: “What is Apollos, after all, and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord assigned each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor. For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.”

Hebrews 12:1-2: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God.”

The “cloud of witnesses” serves no purpose and has no meaning in your purged or sanitized version of Christianity. Catholics acknowledge Christ as the one Mediator while making room for the role of the saints. Catholics do not sever the head from the body of our Lord’s mystical union.

Also, is not Christ the sole intercessor, as stated in Matthew?

FATHER JOE: Matthew? Look at the quote from Timothy here from the Catholic bible used at Mass. There is no conflict between intercessory prayer for others and Christ’s role. We can pray for others and they can pray for us. A person who lives with the Lord in heaven does not stop loving and praying for the rest of us still in pilgrimage.

You said, “Second, we ask for intercession and prayer from a saint.” But Jesus Christ is the sole intercessor. And God is omnipotent, so every prayer to a saint almost seems disrespectful to God, who hears said prayer anyways and is the ONLY person capable of granting that prayer’s request.

FATHER JOE: There is no logic in what you write. God calls us into community and that community prays for its members. Nothing the Church does is dismissive of God’s honor or his attributes. Asking the saints to pray with and for us to Almighty God is an acknowledgment that we do not come to God alone. All creation must appeal and give glory to God. Do you even read what I write? Are you incapable of understanding? You might intellectually disagree, that I could respect, but it is as if you are attacking a false straw man Catholicism. That is blatantly dishonest.

Also, how can you justify these intercession prayers, which have literally ZERO precedent in Judaism? (They didn’t pray to Isaiah or Jonah for example to “intercede”). But intercession prayers DO have precedent in Roman Paganism, where people prayed to patron gods.

FATHER JOE:

There is a significant difference in the economy of salvation between Judaism and Catholic-Christianity. Judaism was a religion of law and the promise. Christianity was a faith of love and fulfillment. Judaism gave us the invisible God. Christianity gave us the God made visible. The earliest Jews did not even speak of an afterlife, positing reward with material prosperity and progeny. The gates of heaven were closed and the righteous dead awaited their Savior in the limbo of the dead. It is only in Christ that the prophets and patriarchs would be released from their prison and would know paradise. There is no way to the Father except through Jesus Christ. Do you not believe this? The incarnation changes the economy of images and the paschal mystery alters the economy of salvation. Jesus establishes a new People of God, a family in faith. It is in light of Christ’s saving work and his resurrection that we speak of the saints (both here and in the heavenly kingdom) who pray for and with us (Romans 5:8). The saints (both angelic and human) are on our side and love us. Together, we love the Lord.

It should be added that our prayer with the saints is more than intercessory. We also together give thanks and praise to God.

“Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Psalm 103:20-21).

“Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!” (Psalm 148:1-2).

Again, how is it any different when a Roman Catholic holds a talisman of St. Gerard, prays to him to get pregnant, from say a Roman Pagan who holds a talisman of Venus, hoping to get pregnant?

FATHER JOE: Do not make yourself out to be a fool in not seeing the difference. You might disagree with Catholicism, but these practices are not factually the same. Again and again, a relic or image of St. Gerard is not a talisman. It has no magic. We do not superstitiously see any power in the sacramental. While the pagans went to these extremes, they also worshipped false deities. St. Gerard is not God and Catholicism attributes to him nothing of God. He has been sanctified by Christ and shares in his risen life. St. Gerard is a creature and a member of the mystical body of Christ (the Church) and the communion of the saints. If God answers a prayer asked in reference to the saint’s intercession, this is merely an expression of our profound union with Christ and corporate solidarity in him.
Graciela, on January 29, 2013 at 2:15 am said:

Dear Fr. Joe, If a person says they’re Catholic but openly advocates for women’s ordination, gay marriage and contraception, should they receive the Holy Eucharist?

FATHER JOE: We would need to know the depth to which one advocates dissent. Well meaning, but misinformed people might suggest the possibility of women priests at a dinner party, but such is quite different from protests and collaboration with illicit and invalid priestesses. Many might also be very sympathetic and feel sorry for particular gay couples, however, this is not as serious as the political proponent for such liasons or those who actually live out such a lifestyle. As for contraception, it may be that a majority of Catholics in the modern world have compromised themselves, not out of malice but because of fear and the propaganda of a secular modernity. Pope John Paul II asked Confessors to be especially compassionate and understanding of married couples who use contraception. What people struggle with personally is not the same as those who advocate free condoms in schools or placing vending machines with the morning after pill in the student lounges of our public colleges. If a person dissents on these three points then it is likely that disagreements with the Church extend to other matters and goes a lot deeper. They become their own church by breaking from Catholic unity and dismissing the teaching authority instituted by Christ. Since Holy Communion is only available to Catholics in good standing, those who have forfeited such standing by defection or mortal sin should refrain from receiving.
Clint, on January 28, 2013 at 8:41 pm said:

Hi Father, my wife had a hysterectomy years ago. Two different priests told us that oral sex was alright because there was no chance of procreation. Judging from what you have written, should we now go to confession and stop having oral sex? Thank You. God Bless!

FATHER JOE:

Dear Clint, first, whatever you do in the intimacy of your home, always remember to place the emphasis upon loving the person before seeking pleasure for its own sake. Second, given human weakness and the difficulty of placing restraint upon sexual desire, always find yourselves open to mutual forgiveness and seeking the healing help of the Church and her sacraments.

Now, looking at what you write, either the priests were mistaken or you misunderstood what they were trying to say. They probably made the qualification that such might be permissible as foreplay to enable the marital act or as an action to complete the act for the woman. Pursued in isolation from the marital act, it would be deemed wrong. The definition of the marital act is vaginal intercourse between the husband and wife. The issue of a hysterectomy and/or infertility makes no difference to the question. The marital act promotes fidelity and consummates the covenant of marriage. Other sexual acts or feigned marital acts fail to do so. The marital act must always be “that type of act” that is open to the transmission of new human life, even if said transmission is dubious or judged impossible. It is for this reason that Church authorities have even condemned condomistic intercourse between elderly and infertile married couples so as to prevent the spread of HIV or other viruses. While the mechanics are similar, it is not the marital act which must be open to donation and reception.
Mary, on January 25, 2013 at 9:38 pm said:

Hi Father,

My boyfriend and I are long distance and we’ve been dating for about 5 months. We’ve had some issues with chastity but we have really put effort into working through these temptations. A lot of the reason for this was being in a very new situation where we had to learn new virtues and the other part of it was being long distance and the buildup of passion that results. When he comes to visit me, we sleep at my apartment in the same bed. We both know our limits and know that all we are doing is sleeping beside each other. Is this wrong? I can reason out that this is fine because I know that we are not being immoral, but I still feel guilty. Having sex or falling into sin is not an option for us and we both have chosen to firmly live this out, but I know that I can’t tell our friends or family because it would cause scandal, like it talks about in 1 Corinthians 8: 4-13. If people knew, we know what they’d think. The truth is that we never get to spend time with each other and so spending the night together allows us to maximize our time spent together. I am afraid to tell my spiritual director too because I know he’ll say that he thinks it’s a bad idea. What do you think of this, Father? Thank you in advance for your prayerful answer.

FATHER JOE:

I will give you a very prayerful and Christian answer: stop sleeping with your boyfriend! You may think you are kidding others; but you are really fooling yourselves. Single couples of the opposite sex should not live together in the same apartment (cohabitation). It is a practice frowned upon by the Church. The fact that you sleep together in the same bed is even more precarious. You are playing with fire. No matter how strong you might think you are, human weakness and concupiscence afflicts us all. The more you love each other, the more you will want physical union.

Such a business also causes scandal and this is wrong and sinful, too. Trying to keep it secret is really a recognition that it is wrong; you just refuse to admit it. We should do nothing about which we would be ashamed if exposed. Continue in this manner and others, including family, will find out.

Men are inherently very physical. A normal man would have serious struggles with sleeping in the same bed with a woman for whom he has romantic feelings. How old are the two of you? Is the man a closet homosexual? How long have you been doing this? I suspect that the issue with passion is not due merely to long separations but to intimate proximity. Such is a serious occasion for sin. I fear that deception and manipulation are at work here.

If you are boyfriend and girlfriend, and not husband and wife, you have no moral right as Christians to spend nights together in the same bed. What you fear others would think is what you should be thinking. You should tell your Confessor and if your boyfriend still insists upon such a relationship, then you should make distance. Something is seriously wrong here. Human beings are sexual and mortal creatures, not angels or robots. Continue sleeping together in the same bed and you will end up doing a lot more than sleeping. Remember, “I told you so.”
Jonathan, on January 25, 2013 at 1:20 am said:

You said, “The College of Cardinals was a human construct to insure a smooth transition in papal elections.” And that human construct comes from the Roman Pagan “College of Priests” which elected a “Pontifex Maximus.”

FATHER JOE: Similarities do not always mean an immediate connection. Such jumps in reasoning represent shoddy research and a desire to slur the Church. Would you condemn the apostles as that first college which voted for a replacement after the betrayal and death of Judas? The people and clergy of Rome had a part to play in the election of their bishop. But, given his universal significance, and the danger of conflict, the College of Cardinals was developed. The old empire of pagan Rome was long gone when the College was devised after the death of Germany’s king, Henry IV in 1056 AD. The change would limit the secular influence or even appointments of Popes. As part of the Gregorian Reform, it was argued that the election of Popes was purely the business of the Church (1059 AD). Cardinal-bishops, Cardinal-priests and Cardinal-deacons from the twelfth century on elected Popes.

Same as the word “Pope” comes from Greek paganism. Nowhere in the Bible do these words exist, nor does it instruct election of a supreme head of the Church.

FATHER JOE: The word “Pope” is a variation of “papa” or “father.” The Pope functioned as a spiritual father over the family of faith. Your word-games prove nothing except how terribly misinformed you are.

The Jewish method for choosing a High Priest has ALWALYS been primogeniture, the son of the last reigning Kohen is chosen, similar to Kings (which the Pope claims to be one, yet is elected like a President from amongst electors as is done in the USA).

FATHER JOE: The Jews placed a lot of emphasis in relations by blood and their role as the Chosen People. However, as a Christian you should appreciate that the more important factor in our kinship with Christ and one another is FAITH. The manner of papal election today is restricted to the Cardinals or electors. The United States government borrowed from this the idea of an electoral college that elects a president, based upon state populations and the popular vote. Of course, as we discovered a few years ago, the electoral vote (not the popular one) is the most important and determining one.

The current method of elections reflects the old Pagan method of electing high priests by vote, not the scriptural tradition or jewish tradition of inheritance (God makes every heir to the throne in the womb, but voting selects the most charistmatic or in worse cases, devious).

FATHER JOE: Again, have you forgotten that the apostles voted on a replacement for Judas? You are condemning not simply the Catholic Church but the New Testament and the twelve apostles! The Church trusts that the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church established by Jesus Christ. Your lack of such confidence makes you the real pagan in this discussion.

And you know that the word “Church” in the Bible does not refer to a building but to ALL Christians, including those who are not a member of YOUR specific “church”. It is well and true that Peter did help found churches, but to assume that the Catholic Church has some special authority that say, the Orthodox churches or the Coptic churches do not, borders on blasphemy.

FATHER JOE: Our Lord renamed Simon as Peter or ROCK and said that upon this ROCK he would build his Church. All the genuine Christians of the New Testament are “precisely” members of the same Church which calls itself Catholic or “universal.” Catholicism was directly instituted by Christ. The Catholic Church is not “a” church but “the” Church. Given your comments, you would deny the sacraments and the faith of Eastern churches (Orthodox and Coptic), too. About this you are deceptive. Catholic teaching acknowledges that these Eastern churches are indeed churches, albeit with the defect of a break from the Holy See. However, we recognize the efficacy of their sacraments. They have a valid priesthood and a real Eucharist. While our union is not what it should be, Catholicism regards our sister Eastern churches as largely united to us in faith. Again, if there is any blasphemy in this discussion, it is yours.

How can you not see the parallels between Roman Catholicism and Roman Paganism? Vestal Virgins “married God” and declared celibacy the same as Nuns today, the “College of Cardinals” wears similar clothing even to the old Pagan “College of Priests”. But I’m sure you’ll say it was a coincidence, like Christmas being decided on the day of Sol Invictus, or adopted practices (gift giving in front of trees) from Saturnalia.

FATHER JOE: Catholicism baptized or Christianized elements of the pagan world. However, a great deal more is simply reflective of our common human condition. For instance, there is no immediate link between Buddhist and Catholic monasticism. However, in discipline while not in doctrine there are strikingly similar elements of discipline and life. The reason for this, as with ancient pagan religions, has to do with our common human condition. The pagans were not Martians but men and women. There is evidence that Mary and other women gave themselves to virginal service at the Jewish Temple. However, while similar to our celibate religious today, there is no direct link with the Roman vestal virgins. The vesture of the cardinals has changed over the centuries but priestly stoles (as a sign of authority) were a symbol borrowed from the Roman senate. The chasuble worn during Mass signifies wearing Christ, although it finds its source in imperial garb. Ancient holidays were made into Christian holy days. Catholicism does not insist upon December 25 as the actual birthday of Christ; however, would you deny that he was born into the human family. You attack accidentals and threaten essentials. I have heard it all before, old bigotries from hateful and ignorant men.

When Catholics bow down and hold images of the “Patron Saint of Fertility”, St. Gerard, hoping to get pregnant, how is that different from Roman Pagans holding images of the “Patron Goddess of Fertility” Venus?

FATHER JOE: The differences are important. First, we venerate images just as we would the photograph of a dear friend. A serviceman in Iraq who kisses the photo of his wife is not worshipping the picture but remembering with love his beloved who is physically absent but in his heart. Second, we ask for intercession and prayer from a saint, but there is no magic or wishing upon a secondary deity or demiurge. Third, we cannot compel God or force his hand; while all prayer is directed to God, we also submit to his providence. His will be done.

And how do you reconcile the Catholic church’s support of chanting a “Hail Mary” three times daily, for example, against the Biblical condemnation of chanting?

FATHER JOE: I am not sure what you mean by chanting the Hail Mary three times a day. There is no such rule although the prayer is a staple of the Holy Rosary. There is NO prohibition in the Bible against chanting or singing. Indeed, there are Hebrew chants. Our Lord and his apostles are said in Scripture to chant the psalms after the Lord’s Supper as they entered the Garden.

Sadly, I have a feeling you will try to twist and turn and find verbal defenses for each of these practices, but I beg you for the sake of your soul to consider what you are doing if you are wrong and that these “human constructs” as you yourself called them, are in fact the constructs of the Devil. For Satan himself said in Isaiah 14, “I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation… You might want to consider the possibility that today he already sits upon it.

FATHER JOE: No you are quite wrong, but you would rather no defense be made against your distortions and lies. You bear false witness against me and the Church. You blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. You trust your own ignorance and the propaganda of those who hate genuine Christianity over the truth of God in his Word and in the Living Church. Note that while you refuse to capitalize the word CHURCH, you are the one who places a capital “D” in reference to the devil. I suggest that you look careful as to which side you are on.
Fredo, on January 22, 2013 at 4:44 pm said:

Dear Father Joe,

Can you show me why there is only one God and not gods?

And why is Jesus God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit?

And how did the name Jehovah come instead to be Yahweh?

Some Jehovah Witnesses came to my house and asked me these questions. I answered properly but feel like I can learn more. I defended the faith pretty good. They said I was the first Catholic they met to know well the Scriptures. When I asked them the tough questions, they ignored me and changed the subject to “priests are pedophiles.” I replied, “I condemned these acts and so does every other Catholic, it is a grave sin. If a Jehovah Witness is a murderer are all JW’s murderers? I also quoted the verse where though the Pharisees were hypocrites Jesus still acknowledged their authority. Almost forgot, they also said that Protestants and Catholics took God’s name away “Jehovah” and replaced it with God. I’m Catholic and not contemplating becoming a JW, I just want to know.

FATHER JOE: If by a deity you mean ALMIGHTY God then there is logically one God. God is all-knowing, all-holy, all-perfect, all-good, without beginning and without end, and ALL-POWERFUL. An attribute like omnipotence cannot be shared without diminishment, which is an inherent contradiction. The role of Jesus as God’s Son and the significance of the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament. The Church speaks of three divine Persons but ONE DIVINE NATURE. The word Jehovah is the same as the word Yahweh. There has been some past controversy about the consonants and translation. Jehovah is a latinized version of the Hebrew.
JOI, on January 20, 2013 at 10:15 pm said:

Father, a Baptism question… don’t know if I’ve asked you this before. Was told that as a nurse if we felt somebody was on the moment of their death and we weren’t sure they had been Baptised we could Baptise them with water only, making the sign of the cross on their forehead and saying, “I baptize you in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.” Never did that as a nurse. Okay, having said that, I work with severely handicapped children on a daily basis. I am 99.99% sure that some of these children have never been baptised and probably never will be baptised. Is it a sin to baptise them in the method I’ve stated above. I have done it several times (privately) and there are some children in our care now that I am concerned about.

FATHER JOE: While I certainly understand and sympathize, even clergy are not permitted to baptize without authorization from a parent or guardian. I am reminded of the nuns who used to sew clandestine holy medals into the clothen worn by pagans. There was also a nurse missionary who used to secretly baptize all the non-Christian children in her charge: from Moslem, Buddhist and Hindu families. Baptism brings grace but it is not magic. Children in close proximity to death is one thing, but what if they live a normal lifespan? Ignorant of their baptism and formed in another faith entirely, how might God judge them… as a faithful Moslem or a bad Catholic? I would generally not usurp the rights of parents in regard to their children. If they are Christian, might you give them counsel?
jonathan adriano, on January 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm said:

Why are priests forbidden to marry?

FATHER JOE:

First, the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a natural right.

Second, no one can be forced to exercise this right. The Church would have men make a choice, marriage or priesthood?

The ancient Jewish priests abstained from sexual relations during their rotation time of cultic service. The early Church ordained married men but there was a preference for St. Paul’s celibacy for the kingdom. The ministry of the Catholic or Christian presbyter (priest) was perpetual and so it was logically concluded that he should have a single-hearted love for God, giving himself only to the Lord and to his service. Research shows that many married men who became priests, continued to provide for their spouses and children, but terminated sexual relations with their wives. They began to live in a Joseph-Mary relationship of perfect continence. This was sometimes difficult and the Church over time moved to ordaining only single men. There are directions for this in the fourth century and it was legally mandated in the eleventh. Married men today from our Eastern rites (in Europe) and from Anglican clergy becoming Catholic are ordained. The prohibition is not absolute but has doctrinal implications. It is largely regarded as an ecclesiastical discipline. We believe that if the calling is genuine then God will give the man the grace of celibacy. It becomes an element of his spiritual discernment.
Fredo, on January 19, 2013 at 8:28 am said:

Dear Father Joe, I know that the antichrist is usually tought to be the Roman emperor Nero (666), which makes sense. However my question is whether there is an Antichrist, like “the” antichrist, because pretty much those who don’t believe or don’t do God’s will are antichrists, but is there that “one” antichrist or no? Just need some clarification. I hope the question is understandable.

FATHER JOE: The ultimate anti-Christ is Satan, but as for who the most evil human being might be we cannot answer that until the consummation of human history. There are many contenders from past human history, but we cannot know what monsters might be waiting for us in the future.