Ask a Priest

5,442 Responses

Ava Estelle, on March 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm said:

Wow, I really wasn’t trying to be “silly.” I was just wondering, because my mother took St. Francis of Assisi, but took the feminine form of the name, Frances, with no problem. I really want to follow in the footsteps of both St. Gwen and St. Ambrose, and have not considered them solely for the appeal of their names. So with that, am I allowed to take a male confirmation name despite me being female?

FATHER JOE: As I said, gender is not so much the issue, but the name should probably remain unchanged. With all due respect to your mother, Frances is indeed a saint’s name but it is not St. Francis of Assisi. St. Frances is often a reference to Mother Cabrini or possibly St. Frances of Rome.
badblack, on March 14, 2013 at 12:34 pm said:

Father Joe, I would like some help from you. My colleagues say that we Catholics are following much of peoples commands other than God’s. especially when it comes to sabbath, that we worship on a day of our convinience and not the seventh day. how do I respond?

FATHER JOE: Most Protestant churches agree with Catholics and the Orthodox giving the emphasis to Sunday. We are Christians, not Jews. The New Testament already speaks about the growing transition from the Hebrew Sabbath to the Sunday Observance. The Lord’s Day was Sunday, called the “Eighth Day” in the early Church. The Christians were expelled from the synagogues. Pagans converted to the faith. The Christians gathered on Sunday morning to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The transition was from “creation” to the “new creation” in Christ. Sunday immediately symbolized the RESURRECTION. The change in gravity is in regard to the person and saving work of Jesus. This change happened organically in the early Church, under the pentecostal movement of the Holy Spirit.
Sara, on March 13, 2013 at 9:02 pm said:

Father Joe,

My husband and I were married in a civil ceremony in 2002 due to his assignments in the US Army. We were both raised Catholic. It was very difficult to coordinate a Catholic wedding due to his deployments so our plan was to have our marriage blessed in his home state since both of our families lived near one another. Due to his deployments it was impossible as I soon found out. It is something that has bothered me tremendously. In 2006, after a 20 year military career as a decorated Army officer and two children later (both baptized in the Catholic Church) he was killed in Iraq. I have continued to raise our two children in the Catholic church and our son received his 1st communion last year while our daughter will receive hers this year. I am haunted by the fact we were not able to have our marriage blessed (I do cry over this). Is there any possible way to have our marriage blessed even though my beloved husband died in 2006 from an IED attack?

FATHER JOE: All you can do is trust in God’s mercy. What is done, is done. Marriage is unto death do you part. Sorry, there is no way to “bless” or “validate” a mariage after death.
Ava Estelle, on March 13, 2013 at 3:37 pm said:

I am a 16 year old Catholic female and about to be confirmed. However, I have a few questions as to the process of name selection. I have found two saints that I can really relate to: Saint Gwen and Saint Ambrose. However, I was wondering if: I could take the name Gwendolyn instead of Gwen, or; Take the feminine form of Ambrose, Amber? Or take the masculine name despite me not being male? Please advise and thank you so much!

FATHER JOE: There is no absolute rule about gender but you have to take the actual name of the saint. Do not pick a saint because you like the sound of a name. Select one that inspires you or who has special significance. Ambrose is NOT Amber! That is just plain silliness. Make your Confirmation a real renewal and rededication of your faith.
Bob, on March 10, 2013 at 10:38 pm said:

One more question and I think you’ll chuckle, but I play golf! and with the frustration of messing up shots or putts and the bantering with friends the language is quite salty. Our speech is in jest and not to hurt anyone or God and my Savior. So, what kind of trouble am I in?

FATHER JOE: It depends upon what you mean by “salty.” We should not take God’s name in vain. We should avoid vulgar sexual references. It is a worry of mine that bad language, so often in the past reserved for moments of great emotion (like anger, pain or frustration), has now become casual everyday talk.
Bob Vert, on March 10, 2013 at 10:24 pm said:

Father Joe, I enjoy National Geographic, especially their version of biblical creation. I read the Bible from Catholic Extensions in Chicago, Il. I was taught that Genesis is based on stories from generation to generation before the written word. Now, I’d like to understand primitive man’s thinking in chapter 6, paraphrasing, “That the sons of man saw that the daughters were fair and took them as their own. and giants and heroes of long ago were the offspring. Are these giants and heroes related to Greek Mythology? if not, who are they?

FATHER JOE: Some authorities contend that there is a connection to mythical Hellenic figures. The creation of the Nephilim is a bit contrived, the stuff of Hebrew legend not unlike our own folk stories. Angels, bad or good, are pure spirits and it is hard to imagine that they would either be attracted to or have the potential to be creative with human females. Scientists tell us that there was an overlap between modern humans and Neanderthals until the latter’s disappearance some 30,000 years ago. This or some other race of men (where the record is lost) is certainly possible. Jews believed that the giants were destroyed by the primordial flood. I cannot say that it is a matter that I have given much thought.
Scott, on March 10, 2013 at 7:41 pm said:

I swore I wouldn’t commit the sin of smoking [deleted] and I did. That is what I swore on the Holy Bible, and I’m really sorry. I have pleaded for the forgiveness of God as well. However, I can’t tell my mother as it would dissapoint her and break her heart.

FATHER JOE: Seek God’s forgiveness and go on. Put it behind you.
cindi, on March 10, 2013 at 4:28 pm said:

Can a priest do wedding in any other places than a church? My daughter wants to have the ceromony in a tent, but was told priest can only do it in a church. Thanks.

FATHER JOE: Various dioceses may have different rules. However, I know that such marriages are now forbidden in the Archdiocese of Washington. The sacrament should take place in the parish church or in special cases a school chapel or oratory (with permission).
Scott, on March 10, 2013 at 2:04 am said:

What do you mean “about some things”?

FATHER JOE: Broken promises or not, once baptized, always baptized. Grace can be lost but the spiritual character is permanent. Much the same goes for Confirmation. Once a priest, always a priest. Yes, even if through mortal sin he should suffer hell, his spiritual stamp is permanent. The Judas-priest becomes a mocking caricature of Christ in hell. The promise of marriage makes the two into one flesh, “until death” do they part. If you are really married then remarriage constitutes adultery. Forgiveness would require separation from the feigned or false spouse. Someimes mercy requires not only contrition but restitution.
Scott, on March 9, 2013 at 10:54 pm said:

I have swore on the bible to keep a promise, but I didn’t keep the promise in the end, can I be forgiven because I swore to keep a promise on the HOLY BIBLE, but didn’t keep it?

FATHER JOE: We should be careful about the promises we make. A promise upon the Bible, as to tell the truth in court or as in taking an office (like the presidential inauguration) is extremely serious. As a general rule, we should usually refrain from biblical vows, particularly if they are somewhat capricious. But to answer your question, ours is a merciful God. He can forgive and “about some things” can release us from promises.
jimmy, on March 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm said:

JESUS said in the book of HEBREWS, this people serve ME with lips but their hearts are from ME, because they are following the tradition of men rather than the commandments of GOD, is it because catholics follow 50% tradition and 50% word of GOD? JESUS said if we are hot or cold HE will spew us out.

In Matthew 6:9, JESUS teaches us how to pray that is accordance to the will of JESUS, but if we add the name of mary and other saints to intercede our prayer, then we are not following what JESUS taught us to pray, as if you are adding something to our prayer, which is not taught by JESUS.

FATHER JOE:

There is obviously much you do not know and about which you are confused. While you may refuse to capitalize the word “Catholic” because you personally do not subscribe to original Christianity, the practice not to capitalize “Mary” violates Scripture, its translation, and impugns the Mother of Jesus.

Your initial reference to where Jesus spoke about sincerity in faith is NOT found in Hebrews but is Matthew 15:8-9 where our Lord cites Isaiah 29:13. Jesus says: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’” Jesus’ reference was not to the Church at all but rather directed to the Pharisees and scribes, first over the ablution of hands and second over the Jewish prescriptions of the law regarding clean and unclean foods. A community can have rules and discipline, but Jesus would remind us of our priorities and that faith must be REAL, not just mechanical habit or external observance. It upset Jesus that many of the Jewish leadership were quick to condemn, but slow to dialogue and show mercy. The Church’s disciplines are not on the same level as doctrines. Some traditions and customs are devised by men. There is nothing wrong with this. But there are also traditions and laws given by God. These take precedent. Such is the teaching of the Catholic faith. Your percentages are nonsensical. The Catholic Church belongs wholly to Christ as his bride and creation.

The first half of the Hail Mary is taken entirely from Scripture (see Luke 1:28 and 1:42). Are you saying that we cannot quote Scripture when we pray? Please put aside your bigotry and ignorance. We can ask the saints to pray with and for us. They are also part of the family of faith. Are you saying that the only prayer you have is literally the Our Father? I would bet that you could not even explain the clauses of this central prayer. Jesus extends his Father to us as our Father. Catholics see themselves as adopted sons and daughters of the Father in faith, kin to our elder brother Christ, and thus by association spiritual children of Mary our Queen Mother. Why is she termed a “queen”? It is wholly by association because Christ is the KING. The Lord’s Prayer gives us both actual words and gives us a pattern or form of prayer. Do you know the various Christian prayer forms? Let me help you: PRAISE or ADORATION, THANKSGIVING, SUPPLICATION or PETITITION, and CONTRITION. One might also speak of CONTEMPLATION, but I would probably be wasting my time speaking to you about levels of MEDITATION. Catholic Christians also believe that we can make REPARATION and enter into Christ’s great prayer in the Eucharist and his Cross where PROPITIATION or SATISFACTION for sin is made.

You need to study the Bible more and maybe get a good Catholic catechism so that you will not wrong Catholics in your critiques.
Tan Chu Chin, on March 7, 2013 at 5:24 am said:

Dear Father Joe, please explain the meaning of Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:6 “But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” and “the teaching of Balaam” in Revelation 2:14. Thank you.

FATHER JOE:

It seems clear to me. Warnings are being given to those who have succumbed to false teaching and practices. They are being admonished to change their ways and to remain faithful to the truth of Christ. Revelation 2:6 is directed to the Ephesians: “But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” The second citation from Revelation 2:14-16 targets the church in Pergamum: “Yet I have a few things against you. You have some people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who instructed Balak to put a stumbling block before the Israelites: to eat food sacrificed to idols and to play the harlot. Likewise, you also have some people who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore, repent. Otherwise, I will come to you quickly and wage war against them with the sword of my mouth.” The notation in the New American Bible stipulates that Pergamum is modern-day Bergama, around forty-five miles northeast of Smyrna. It was “a center for various kinds of pagan worship.” This fits with the condemnation of false worship to idols.

A few critics connected the Nicolaitans to Nicolaus of Antioch (Acts 6:5); however, this is regarded by most authorities as unlikely. There is one testimony that the heresy began with a deacon who took upon himself too much authority. While little is known about the sect, Nicolaism was a short-lived Christian heresy. Some ancient authorities attributed to them unrestrained indulgence, surrender of the marriage bed or other immoralities. But it is not clear. It is probably just a reference to those who followed certain false witnesses or teachers. See verse two: “I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are impostors.”
Brandon, on March 7, 2013 at 2:05 am said:

Thank you Father for your response. I am baptised, though I do not have a certificate stating such. The church I was baptised in did not keep records. The seminary I had researched was St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado (the state I live in).

I was aware that Seminary can take around 9 years or longer depending on various circumstances. As for the things you mention, most are things I want in my life, daily mass for example. If it were possible for me at the moment I would attend mass daily (I have been attending it weekly for some time now).

I believe, for now, I will continue to pray the rosary daily and I will continue to pray. After finishing RCIA we will see where God takes me in life. Once again, I would really like to thank you for responding.
Brandon, on March 6, 2013 at 12:56 am said:

I am not a Catholic; however, I do wish to be one. I plan on doing RCIA, hopefully this upcoming autumn (or earlier, a parish in my area offers classes year-round). However I feel extremely conflicted. I am going to be graduating high school soon; but, I have no plans for the future. I struggle in deciding what career I want to pursue, because deep down I feel that I am called to the clergy despite being raised non-Catholic. It is a desire like none I have experienced before, and I almost feel as though when I consider it, I am about to burst with joy. However, I am concerned that it is not a possibility because I am non-Catholic (as of yet). I have researched the seminary, which is another concern. It appears, unless I have misread it, that the seminary school in my state is expensive, meaning I would not be able to attend even if I was accepted into one. I’m just conflicted. I don’t know what to do anymore and whether I should start working towards eventually entering seminary or if I should begin to consider other career options?

FATHER JOE:

Are you baptized? Instructions in the faith can still take a year. You may be required to wait another year after that before possible acceptance into the seminary. If you are a college student at that point, any general first year credits would probably transfer. There are two types of seminary, college (philosophy) and graduate (theology). What is the name of the seminary you researched? Note also that if accepted the candidate does not get to select the school or seminary. The Vocations Director and the Bishop assign the man. While there is some financial liability, particularly if you leave the program; many dioceses and all religious orders assume the costs. Men are not turned away from the priesthood because of poverty.

But you are not Catholic, and so, do you even know what it means to become a priest? Formation and education can take between eight to ten years or even more. The classes are often hard and not everyone makes the grade. There is also the discipline. You will pray in community various hours of the day, participate at daily Mass, and practice daily meditation. There might also be rules of enclosure meaning restriction to seminary property. You might be regimented in dress. Class attendance is mandatory. There are also required ministerial service and in-house work assignments. You may even be told, as I was, what length to keep your hair and be restricted regarding facial hair. You will not be permitted to date girls or to fraternize with them.

As a man approaches priesthood, he will first be ordained a deacon. Usually this service lasts a year. Ordained priests in the Catholic Church take promises or vows. The typical ones are obedience (to the bishop or superior) and celibacy. Obedience means that you will go where you are sent and do as you are told. You are not your own man; rather, you belong to the Church. It will no longer matter what you want, only what the Church needs of you. Celibacy means no romantic associations, no dating, no wife, no children, etc. The Church is your bride. It is all quite permanent. The priest in Western tradition lives out a single-hearted love of God that is expressed through prayer, worship and service. While Diocesan or Secular priests do not usually earn much in the way of income, Religious Order priests may take additional vows like poverty. That means that they personally own nothing; everything is held in common.

Is God calling you? While it is still early and you suffer much confusion, I cannot say. But God’s ways are mysterious and it may be that you are hearing the first divine whisperings toward faith and possible service in his Church.
Boyce, on March 5, 2013 at 3:24 pm said:

Wow, thank you for your response Father Joe. I don’t want to sound ungrateful or argumentative but if God wanted the children dead why not do it himself? Why have his people do something like that? Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

FATHER JOE: You asked nothing that upset me. As a thinking person you shared your opinion about something you saw as a contradiction. The quandary here is not new. There was even a early Christian heresy called Marcionism where the wrathful Hebrew deity of the Old Testament was viewed as lower and distinct from the forgiving Father-God of Jesus in the New. Such a view was renounced, but it illustrates the Church’s struggle with an apparent contradiction. Many questions arise. Was it really God’s will that innocent children should die? Or was it rather that sinful and ignorant men viewed God’s will as such? In any case, we know where we stand with Jesus and his revelation of the Father.
john, on March 5, 2013 at 7:42 am said:

the Lord steadies my feet
though i mustn’t brag about my accomplishments
his accomplishments make me a braggart
when i am weary, his spirit makes me aware
when I’m wrong, i seek his majesty
if i am joyful, it is by him
the lord is our food
at his table , we are fed
when he speaks, we soak it in
like sponges,we are thirsty for his truth
his zest has captured me
outside of me is only him
may i please him as he is pleasing
the Lord gives me color
he brightens my day
i was old before i knew him
i seek him like a child
his promises burn in me like a flame
his brightness is peaceful to my eyes
Boyce, on March 4, 2013 at 8:26 pm said:

How can God command his followers to kill children (1 Samuel) and still be the moral authority?

FATHER JOE:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will punish what Amalek did to the Israelites when he barred their way as they came up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

The Amalekites (descendants of Esau) had long been a dreaded enemy of God’s people. The curse of God against them in Exodus 17:14 was not unlike other biblical condemnations; i.e., the primordial Flood or the curse against the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The judgment of God targets not merely individuals, but as with divine favor, the larger community. Catholicism has retained this appreciation in regard to faith; it is both personal and corporate. We are all connected. The Amalekites resented the favor that God had shown Israel.

Some critics make a modified utilitarian argument, arguing that God orders or permits such taking of human life for a greater good. In this case, it would be the survival of his Chosen People. Less convincing but not discounted is the argument that the destruction of a people is for their own good, saving the souls of children by having them die before being corrupted by sin.

What are my thoughts about this? First, all life belongs to God since he is its author. This is the pervading truth that we must understand. It is on this account that God’s taking of our life is not reckoned as evil. Second, God meets us where we are. In other words, God does not reveal himself to us all at once but in a progressive fashion, over time, and culminating in Jesus Christ. The early Jews were little different from their blood-thirsty neighbors, and yet they were the people that God had chosen for himself and from which the Messiah or Christ would emerge.

The Egyptians had employed infanticide against the Jews and Moses was spared. Herod ordered the execution of the first born of Israel, and both Jesus and John the Baptist were spared. Just as in the argument about divorce and remarriage, our Lord tries to correct that which in their “hardness of hearts” they failed to understand. When God intervenes, he does so upon the side of life and justice.

The genuine Christian sensibility, and that of most post-Holocaust Jews, will never be comfortable with certain Old Testament scenes where the Chosen People interpret their own bloodlust as part of the divine will. The psalms used in the breviary and liturgy are edited so that we might not have to bless the one who bashes children to death against the rock (Psalm 137:9). We find this attitude abhorrent, and yet, rationalizations and modern deceits based upon human selfishness and not fidelity to God would tolerate and promote the murder of millions of children annually through abortion. Here is where many of the atheistic critics of religion on this point show their hypocrisy. Catholic teaching has developed over the centuries so as to emphasize that all human life is incommensurate and that innocent life must be protected.
Maureen, on March 4, 2013 at 7:24 pm said:

My grandson asked (and I don’t know) why the various types of clerical clothing came to be. He also said a recent TV program showed clergy in Rome wearing “funny hats” (Miters). Most importantly, he said this formal dress and pomp turned him off. He has not been to church since he was in grammar school; his mom doesn’t attend. He said all this “royalty stuff” makes him back away from considering the Catholic Church. Any helpful advice? I am not much help as I wish it wasn’t so as well. It just seems so unnecessary. I really dislike the term “Princes of the Church”, no matter what the reason. I didn’t tell him that though. Back in 5th grade, we were supposed to kiss the bishops ring at Confirmation and I was so upset. I felt as if we were honoring him instead of God/Jesus. Nuns didn’t like me that day. It is not that I don’t respect the clergy; I do and I appreciate all they do for us but I sure wish we didn’t look like some royal organization. Thank you.

FATHER JOE:

The military, firefighters, the police, doctors, nurses, heck, even janitors wear uniforms. European judges wear wigs and Justice Scalia wore the traditional jurist hat at the recent inauguration. Has your grandson graduated from high school? Will he wear the traditional cap and gown? They might seem silly too, but become the stuff of emotion and memory. Over time certain forms of dress develop to express the roles we play in society. The denial of the Church to similar distinctions in attire would signify a kind of prejudice, even if latent, against her as an institution. Nuns wear habits and priests wear clerical black attire with the collar, sometimes even the cassock and a cape. There are various priestly hats, including the liturgical biretta. We are not spiritual beings, but physical ones. Clothes say a great deal about us, in regard to our roles and in reference to respect. Sometimes a lady will wear a ball gown or evening dress. A man may wear a suit and tie, or even a tux. Brides and grooms often dress up at weddings. The priest wears vestments to signify the nature of the celebration and his authority (as with the stole and chasuble).

Would your grandson strip Indiana Jones of his hat and whip, Batman of his mask or Superman of his cape? Even the fantasy world of comics appreciates how dress amplifies a role and a message.

The Cardinals are true princes of the Church. The red they wear signifies their office and role in the selection of the Popes. The Pope is both the leader of the Church and a temporal leader (over the small Vatican state). The bishop’s ring is a sign of his authority given him as a successor to the apostles. That is why the ring is given respect, not so much to honor the man, but the transmission of Christ’s power in the Church.

It may be that your grandson, as well as many of the laity, has been lured away from a healthy appreciation of symbolic vesture and ceremony by a society increasingly hostile to faith and tradition. We endured first a Protestant iconoclasm and now suffer from an agnostic modernism that would rather ridicule or impugn the Catholic faith than to celebrate it. As faithful sons and daughters, we should take pride in the pageantry, ceremonies, and symbols of our Church.

God bless!
RebeccaElizabeth, on March 2, 2013 at 1:12 am said:

REBECCA: But Catholics claim that the Pope is the visible head of the church and “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to Jesus and to God.

FATHER JOE:

Your last question was about the institution of the priesthood. Now you switch gears and attack the papacy. Evidently, your questions are not sincere but merely apologetic ploys to attack the Catholic faith.

We speak about God, particularly in the Mass, as our Father most holy. Indeed, he is thrice holy, as expressed in the Sanctus; he is the source of all holiness. The use of “Holy Father” for the Pope is no absolute usurpation of the tile. It is merely that the Church sees herself as a family and her ministers as spiritual fathers. While the Pope, as successor to St. Peter, is the visible head of the Church; the true albeit invisible headship is that of Jesus Christ. The title, “Vicar of Christ,” belongs uniquely to the Pope as it would make no sense to call Jesus his own vicar. At one time in the evolution of the title, the Pope was called the Vicar of Peter. However, in meaning, it amounted pretty much to the same thing. Christ is the Redeemer and the great Pontifex or Bridge between heaven and earth. He gives us access to the Father. The use of the word Pontiff for the Pope is an immediate connection with the “keys of the kingdom” given the chief apostle by Christ. Nothing is taken away from our Lord by the Church; but you would strip her of the leadership commissioned by Christ.

REBECCA: There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father.

FATHER JOE:

The Church was something new. Stop playing word games and look at the truth. The history of the Church did not end with the Bible; rather it began there. There is ample evidence that unique authority was given St. Peter. Matthew 16:18-19:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

When St. Paul addresses the Corinthians, he applies the title of “father” to himself: “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:15). The use of the word “holy” signifies the holiness of the papal office. The Pope is called Holy Father precisely because of the divine charge given the Church and the particular protection given the apostle by Christ. The Pope is Holy Father only because God is our Father Most Holy. The early Church called all the members of the Church by the label “saint.” The word for holy and saint is essentially the same. Because of their charge over the Eucharist and to forgive sins, priests are sometimes called, “holy fathers.”

The last bit of your comment is what you intended to say all along. You hate the Catholic Church and associate the Pope with the anti-Christ. But the false teaching is yours. You join your voice to all the worldly opposition to Christ and his Church. The devil must surely laugh that he can have you fight against the Lord to whom you claim to have faith.

REBECCA: When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4 where it says, “Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”

FATHER JOE:

The Thessalonians suffered under Dionysian seers or false prophets. What is prophesied here is a certain blasphemy either of the pagan emperor or of an anti-Christ figure. The emperor wrongly claimed godhood. This is not the role of a steward or vicar. We have many shepherds who participate in the authority and service of the Good Shepherd. The Pope does not seek worship toward himself but for the one true God. Christian worship always takes note of the Lord’s Supper and the Cross.

The charge given Peter is definitive; it is reaffirmed after the resurrection when our Lord heals the chief apostle (given his recent denials) and he is again told to lead and feed the flock of Christ. This charge is passed on for as long as the Church continues in existence. Read John 21:15-19:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
Hecsan, on March 1, 2013 at 10:47 pm said:

Father I stumbled across this article

[link deleted]

accusing John XXIII of being a Freemason, which by default would excommunicate him and make his papacy invalid and therefore validating the claim of the Sedevacantist, I’m still struggling with Sedevacantism. Just please refute this

FATHER JOE: Any attempted refutation would give false legitimacy to a slanderous deceit. Steer away from these so-called “catholic” anti-Catholic sites. The authors of such trash will face a serious judgment for their garbage. You should do nothing to give them a hearing. They are the true enemies of Christ and his Church. It is absolutely devilish. Of course, Satan loves to twist the truth in stealing souls. Photographs of a career-churchman would obviously show him with both the friends and enemies of the faith. There is proof of nothing at the site except that he did his job as priest and diplomat for Mother Church.
RebeccaElizabeth, on March 1, 2013 at 5:36 pm said:

Why does the catholic church have a priest?

FATHER JOE: Because Jesus instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper when he told his apostles to “do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of me.”
chaoticsymphony, on February 27, 2013 at 6:48 pm said:

If a couple is living together but not engaging in sexual activity and now wish to live properly (in the eyes of God and the Church) and without sin, what is Christianity’s view on Sacramental marriage without civil marriage?

FATHER JOE: There are various mitigating factors for cohabitation, particularly when there is no sexual congress and the desire to live chastely. The Church’s reservation comes from a realistic appreciation of concupiscence and the power of passion. Further, there is the natural desire for unity when there is genuine love. Some countries do NOT grant civil authority to clergy to perform or witness marriages; in such cases, there must be two ceremonies. In the United States, the priest or minister can both witness the marriage for the Church and officiate for the state. The general rule is that the priest cannot witness a marriage that would have no civil standing. This issue frequently comes up because of the potential loss of benefits or a spousal pension. Thus, no civil marriage— then there can be no sacramental one. Any other accommodation undermines the good order of the state. The whole battle over so-called same-sex marriages is derived from this appreciation that both the Church and the state have an invested interest in this institution as a basic building block of a civilized society.
Barbara Cheryl Pitts Shaidnagle, on February 25, 2013 at 6:16 pm said:

I have a question. I am in the middle of a 3 month grand jury, and I am wondering how to remain a true Christian. Today’s reading, “Judge not that you be judged” really hit home to me. Fortunately today my jury mates seemed to have grown a conscience and we no billed four cases of the 65 we handled. But seriously, like, if a father leaves a gun around, a toddler finds it and accidentally kills himself, and drug elements are also found, is it wise to indict the father for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute?? Has he not already suffered enough by the death of his son??

FATHER JOE: The biblical admonition is in regard to salvation and our standing before God. This is wholly different from human judgment. Guns are dangerous weapons. A person should be judged according to the law, sentiment aside, as long as the law is just. Child endangerment should be taken seriously. If illegal drugs are discovered in the investigation, then this too should be pursued in light of the laws on the books. It is not for you to judge whether someone has suffered enough. A distinction exists between the jury and the judge. Deliberate on the facts but allow the judge to be the judge.
eric s., on February 25, 2013 at 5:05 pm said:

Hello Father,
Yesterday’s readings were wonderful, but brought up a few of questions…

First Question: In Genesis 15 Abram is asked to split sacrificial animals (a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old she-goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove and a young pigeon) in two and place each half opposite the other (except the birds). What is the significance of splitting these animals in two and what is the significance of the smoking fire pot and the torch, which pass between them?

FATHER JOE: The formula is that of a typical Hebrew covenant or contract. The animal is cut in half. The blood is sprinkled. The understanding is that if you make and then break the covenant, may you suffer the same fate. A covenant is a testament to your word. You are placing your life on the line. This is a major covenant, with both cheap and expensive sacrifices. This covenant with God covers both the rich and the poor. Abram is making a covenant with God. The smoking fire pot and torch signify that the invisible God is making this covenant with Abram. Abram walks between the pieces. God is signified by smoke and fire. God’s presence sanctifies the offering. The covenant of Abram requires total obedience from Abram. He will be given a new name, a changed identity— Abraham. If he is faithful, then God will claim him and his people. God promises Abram posterity and that his family or tribe will become a great nation.

Second Question: We know that “clean” animals were acceptable to God as liturgical sacrifice in the OT. By definition, (besides being without blemish, disease, broken bones, etc.) Why are certain species singled out as being “clean” animals?

FATHER JOE: It may simply be that God wanted delineation as an element to test human fidelity and/or to instill discipline. It is also possible that there was a natural connection based upon hygiene or sanitation. Further, certain animals had become symbolic of vices they sought to avoid. Some authorities suggest that the unclean animals might have been the oblations of choice from a pre-historic false religion. Christianity would do away with such distinctions.

Third Question: What is the connection between The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:5-12, 17-18) and the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36). One of our Parish Priests gave a wonderful homily on the Transfiguration and second reading (Philippians 3:17–4:1), tied into the Lenten Season; but I don’t recall him mentioning/connecting the first reading. If he did I was zoned out, thinking when I should have been listening.

FATHER JOE: There is no way for me to know what connection your priest was trying to make. I suggest that you ask him. The transfiguration signifies that Christ is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. It also foreshadows our Lord’s resurrected glory. Christ will make a covenant, not with the blood of animals but with his own sacrifice.

Thank you Father. God bless you.
Sincerely,
eric
paul, on February 25, 2013 at 1:55 pm said:

Father, what will be the best explanation why you do not marry as priests???
Was that found in the Bible that priests should not marry a woman? Aaron, a priest in the book of Exodus was married, right?

FATHER JOE: Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not an absolute doctrine of the Church. Jewish priests observed periodic continence during their time of cultic service. Catholic priests are always on duty and so their celibacy is perpetual. There is even evidence that many early married priests practiced continence after ordination. The analogy of marriage which is applied to Christ (the groom) and the Church (his bride) is applied to those men who participate in his priesthood through ordination.