Ask a Priest

5,442 Responses

Charley, on June 28, 2013 at 5:37 pm said:

Do you have any thoughts/opinions/beliefs on the idea of demonic possession via methamphetamine addiction? I’ve watched a close friend go downhill rapidly and she is currently on her way to a mental institution because of her inability to cope with the drug. I’ve always believed it was just a case of rotting the brain to the point of insanity, but to see so many users and former users all recounting stories that are so similar, it’s compelling, to say the least. Do you have any words of wisdom or insight here? Thanks!

FATHER JOE: Self-destructive behavior certainly does not please God, but I really cannot say if there is a link in such a case between demonic influence and drug addiction. Drugs can damage the mind and body in similar ways because we are all pretty much wired the same way.
agnes, on June 28, 2013 at 3:12 pm said:

Halo,

Can there be a middle state, in a relationship between a woman and a priest? Kissing, hugging but not going any further? If they interpret a lot of signs that God allows them to be together? They do not want to marry, only some time together. She plans to go go monastery, too. But the love is deep and they want to stay like this for ever. They are together for five years now and never behaved like married people successfully. They are only kissing and saying that they love each other. Is this ok if it does not lead to sin?

FATHER JOE: Romantic love is forbidden to the celibate priest. And so to answer your question, it is NOT okay.
Fredo, on June 27, 2013 at 7:29 am said:

Father thank you for your responses, but I have a few more questions. You said there is a theology and numbering regarding the genealogies from Adam to Jesus, can you lead me to any good sources, websites, or theologians I can look up regarding this issue (preferably Catholic if possible)?

Second you said, “As a Catholic, the Talmud is not strictly factored into this question,” I’m sorry about that, I thought since the Jews accept the book of genesis, I thought I hear them out. I happened to bump into a link which addresses how an old earth is consistent with the scriptures and how a Jew calculated the age of the universe from scripture to be around the neighborhood of 15 billion years old which is close to what many regard the age of the universe to be. Nonetheless here it is:

http://www.yashanet.com/library/missing_link.htm

I found it intersting but if I am not suppose to be looking into stuff such as this, say the word and I’ll stop.

Third, I also gave you a quote from St. Augustine, “In the beginning were created only germs or causes of the forms of life which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course,” I tried searching for it online but I cannot find when, where, or in which of his works it was quoted. However I do have the source from which I obtained it, perhaps the quote is misattributed to him or misquoted. I got the quote from a video by a theistic evolutionist, Rusell Stannard:

(youtube) http://youtu.be/u_cpnl6Vg-E

Fourth, should I stay away from Rusell Stannard, and if so can you guide me to places from which I can learn more about this matter.

Lastly, what must I believe about the beginning, from your first answer it was clear to me that I have to believe in a real Adam and Eve which I do. You also said they were the first humans but then left the door open to the possibility of pre-adamic people. By Adam and Eve being the first people did you mean they were the first to be endowed with a soul or literally the first, i didnt quite understand The point you made on the first comment. I’m sorry I I sound so tedious I just don’t want to reject dogma and fall into heresy and sorry if I misinterpreted you by not understanding. Thanks!

FATHER JOE:

As for the genealogies, look at the footnotes in the New American Bible. Volumes in the Sacra Pagina commentary series are good but frightfully expensive. I am not sure about websites on the subject.

I do not know much about Russell Stannard. I can recommend:

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn

Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, S.D.S., Stephan Horn

Adam and Eve as the first human beings are regarded as the first to share our nature and possess immortal souls.
Joe, on June 26, 2013 at 10:04 am said:

Im sorry Father, maybe I stated it incorrectly. When I went to confession, at the end the priest gave me a penance of two prayers and proceeded to lead me in the two prayers…the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘Our Father’. I felt a little caught off guard and really did not follow along with him in the prayers, so after he was done, I acted as if I did not know he gave me ‘that’ penance and I proceeded to ask for one….is or was this a lie to the priest that would invalidate my confession and if not, when would a lie do so? I’ve heard it is only during the actual ‘matter’ of the confession part and that is where it only counts if you lie. Is this correct? Also, this may sound like a silly question, but I scheduled a confession during my unpaid lunchbreak knowing it would run longer that an hour to go to and do my confession, which it did; so I skipped work (I was not on the clock) to finish my confession and then returned back to work when I was finished. Would this in have in any way invalidate my confession? Someone had told me it was a sin.

FATHER JOE: I do not know enough about the nature of your work to speak about whether you did wrong. However, employees should always give their employers a full day’s work for a full day’s pay. As for the Confession itself, you said the penance. While I do not want to upset you, the rest is silliness that you have to get over. It is a very unhealthy scrupulosity.
Fredo, on June 26, 2013 at 7:27 am said:

Dear Father Joe,

I have a couple of questions: I have met a few young earth creationists who go above and beyond to attack evolution as being a fraud. They argue that the earth is anywhere from 6,000 to 20,000 years old, regardless of all the evidence. Now I do not have a problem with someone being a young earth creationist, but I do have a problem with creationist saying that theistic evolution and the Big Bang contradict the bible. The minute you say I believe the book of genesis is not to be taken literal is when creationist begin to attack your position and say well you must not believe that Jesus rose from the dead literally which really bothers me, because they basically have an all or nothing attitude, I mean creationist don’t interpret Revelation literally right (at least I hope they don’t)

Psalm 90:4 says “A thousand years is like a day in Your sight.” If we are to understand that 1 day can be years to God than how can creationist reject evolution. How were the days to be numbered (in 24hour days) if the sun was not made until the fourth day? Some creationists claim that not taking genesis literally will make the genealogies from Adam to Jesus faulty, how can this be reconciled with theistic evolution? How is there any contradiction between the bible and evolution when some theologians accept theistic evolution?

FATHER JOE: The genealogies vary and have gaps; they are not supposed to be taken as absolutely exact. There is a theology in the listing and numbering. There is a recounting of salvation history, which is not absolutely the same as chronological history.

Second, was there generations before Adam? For example, the Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam. And Psalm 105:8 states: “He hath remembered his covenant for ever: the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.” Am I misinterpreting these sources or perhaps they are to ambiguous to understand?

FATHER JOE: As a Catholic, the Talmud is not strictly factored into this question. Genesis speaks of the first man and woman and we take this at face value. What else might have happened in pre-history is an area of speculation and scientific research. The Church really says little about it.

Third, I cannot help but notice some of the statements made by St. Augustine such as : “In the beginning were created only germs or causes of the forms of life which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course”
I mean how can anyone disregard this. What exactly was St. Augustine saying when he made that statement, I don’t want to get to thinking the wrong ideas maybe he was or was not alluding to evolution, but was he?

FATHER JOE: Where did St. Augustine say it? What is the citation? Remember that he was a Neo-Platonist and even spoke of a world-soul.

In conclusion, I don’t have a problem with young earth creationists but what I do have a problem with is that they have a problem with everybody else. I’m not going to deny mountains of evidence because though faith has its place, so does reason. Perhaps the biggest obstacles young earth creationist have is that they have a bias towards a faulty interpretation of the bible and go to great lengths to Defend those faulty claims, even to lie, mostly out if ignorance rather than malice. I guess what I’m saying is that creationist are willing to ignore mountains of evidence to hold on to their faulty interpretation, and I do not believe the problem lies in the science itself but in the interpretation. If creationists come to the understanding that the bible and evolution can coexist in harmony than in that moment is when the piles of evidence will finally come to be accepted.
john, on June 24, 2013 at 4:09 am said:

Father Joe,

1. I know that Jesus loves all people, Jew and Gentile. In the Gospels, we see he has a special love for his Chosen Race. Does he leave that behind now, or will he defend the honor of Israeli when great dishonors (and arrows) are heaped upon that nation of his Light?

FATHER JOE: I cannot claim in certainty to know Christ’s mind and heart about this. However, Christ is a Jew and the Messiah. He will always be linked to the People of the Promise through whom salvation came. God made a Covenant with them. God keeps his promises. Christians are literally a spiritual Semitic people. Abraham is also our Father in Faith. The Hebrew Scriptures are also our Scriptures. While Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant and establishes a New Covenant in his blood; there remains a connection between the Jewish people with both Jesus and his Church. It would seem to me that just as Christ will NEVER orphan his Church; he will also NEVER abandon his first people who call upon the Lord God.

2. Does the “abundant life” Jesus speaks about pertain only to the joy we receive with the knowledge of our salvation?

FATHER JOE: Our Lord speaks about his followers or the Church. He is the good shepherd and the sheep-gate. Shepherds would place their flocks into an enclosure with one opening. They would rest upon the ground placing their bodies on the line at this entrance to protect their sheep from evil robbers and from wolves. It is in this context that Jesus says, “A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). God grants us life but because of sin, suffering and death came into the world. There was a breech in our relationship with God. But it was not totally severed. A promise was made for eventual redemption. It is in this sense that Christ grants us the “abundant life.” We can walk in right relationship with God. We are remade into the likeness of Christ by grace. We are given a share in eternal life. Knowing and experiencing this is the cause of our hope and joy.

Wasn’t the anointing he received from the (former) prostitute’s perfume part of his abundant life?

FATHER JOE: The sinner woman expressed deep sorrow for sin and great love. Washing our Lord’s feet with her tears and anointing him was her means of welcoming Christ into her life. Jesus would respond by forgiving her sins and thus changing her life. The mercy of God is indeed the beginning of the “abundant life.” She showed hospitality to the Lord and now he welcomes her to a share of his kingdom.

3. If we can communicate with the dead in Jesus (assuming his permission and clearance), can we not also “telepathically” communicate with the living (when they are not near)?

FATHER JOE: God’s intervention that enables prayers to the saints is not technically telepathy. We in this world live by faith not by sight, or in this case, not directly hearing the celestial chorus. God has given us the ability to speak and to communicate in writing. This is where I would place the emphasis among the earthbound. Parapsychology is uncertain and when it trespasses from science to the occult (which it easily does), it becomes forbidden to believers. Necromancy is regarded as seriously sinful and opens the door either to superstition or demonic deception and invasion.

I would like to give a shout out to the terminally ill for which I have a special affection.

FATHER JOE: Then visit them and keep them in your prayers.
James, on June 22, 2013 at 5:53 am said:

Thanks for your answer to my previous question. It was a relief. I guess I just felt bad because of my lack of prudence. If I thought something may have been against the Church; I should have lived like it was not like how I hoped it may be.

So I do have one more question. I hope this doesn’t irritate you; it’s related to my previous one and I feel that this is a topic that would get tiresome quickly. Well, I just recalled a few times in class where I would pretend to support same sex marriage out of fear that my friends would ostracize me. I knew to do so was a mortal sin, but I’m unsure if it excommunicated me for heresy. If it is relevant I have been completely aware that heresy incurred and automatic excommunication for two years. Do I have anything to worry about (I have already confessed this so if there’s no excommunication I’ve been forgiven)?

FATHER JOE: Such might be a symptom of weakness or fear but it is not grounds for excommunication. Church censures are very specific… as with the procurement of an abortion, consecrating an illicit bishop or a false ordination, or attacking the person of the Pope.
Joe, on June 22, 2013 at 2:56 am said:

Dear Father Joe,
I was wondering if you could give me your opinion if the lie i told is a mortal sin…
A while back i had learned the churches teaching on end of life care and i decided to contact my sisters and brothers as to the care my mother received at the end of her life when she was dying of cancer. I called my two sisters and one reacted quite vehemently about what i had asked her… implying that i was accusing somebody of not properly taking care of my mom at the end of her life (this sister one one of the decision makers in the whole process). Reacting to the offense she had taken, i called her back and to insure i did not permenantly damage my family relationship with her (she probably would have never talked to me again) i made up a lie and said i was asking her about my mom’s end of life care because i was getting checked for cancer and wanted to know the extent of her cancer so i knew whether i was having the same symptoms….this was a half truth because i had been checked for cancer earlier that year and was trying to convince my doctor to do other tests as well to make sure, but i had not done that yet…and it was not the real reason i called her… so to save my relationship with her i lied and carried the lie through four other conversations with her. I later cleared things up ‘without’ telling her i had lied specifically, but just let her know i made some foolish decisions and i was gonna be alright as far as my health…I saved my relationship with her although i did lie to do so.. was this lie a ‘mortal’ or ‘venial’ sin as i dont believe it constituted ‘grave matter’?
Thank You for your kind response!

FATHER JOE: I suspect it was venial.
James, on June 22, 2013 at 12:01 am said:

Father, did I excommunicate myself for heresy? A few months ago I stumbled across a theological issue in which I was unsure of what the Church truly taught. This was because there wasn’t much information on the topic. Despite this, I had enough information to make a decent assumption as to what the Church taught. This was contrary to what I hoped was true. As a result, I decided to assume that what I wanted was correct; until I was ready to talk to my confessor in order to find out what the Church really taught. I did decide that once I was 100% sure on what the Church taught, I’d accept that position. Recently, I began stumbling across theological information that was related to this issue. The new information caused me to reject the position I desired as theologically stupid and spiritually dangerous. I’m sure that what I had once desired is against Church doctrine. During the month that I chose to believe something that I felt was likely contrary to truth, did I cause myself to become excommunicated?

FATHER JOE: No, you were not excommunicated for bad opinions.

On a slightly related note: Sometimes when I’m engaging in a theological discussion, I’ll admit to struggling with Church teachings. Typically it will be that I cite what the catechism says, but later state that I have a tendency to wish that the opposite were true, but I’ll mention that it doesn’t work well with how relevant passages have been presented to me. I do this in the hope that I’ll either find that I’ve been given a wrong view on what the Church teaches or I’ll gain more insight as to why the Church teaches certain things. Never am I trying to come across as if I’m rejecting a doctrine of the Church. No matter how much I struggle with a teaching, I will accept what the Church says. Still, does any of this make me a heretic?

FATHER JOE: No, this does not make you a heretic.
agnes, on June 21, 2013 at 10:17 am said:

Halo,

1. Isn’t it bad that the purpose in life for a person has its place outside his spirit/own mind if he loves? That it belongs to another person, who is only a creature?

FATHER JOE: I suppose that much depends upon what we mean by “love.” Human relationships are not perfect. We are sinners loving sinners. The love between spouses embraces the whole person, with all our weaknesses and faults. Even the annoying character flaws are accepted as elements of the beloved. Some things might be changed but one cannot enter a relationship or marriage thinking that all flaws or shortcomings can be healed in this world. If we imitate Christ then we love, not because the person is always loveable, but because we choose to love him or her. Some people are hard to love but the obligation to love and forgive remains. Love should bring joy but even if it entails hardship, it remains a “good” and obligation of Christians. We can never escape the Cross. However, when embraced it does bring a measure of freedom. The love of spouses does not invalidate or replace the love of God. Certainly religious and celibate priests exhibit a “single-hearted” love of God. They love God directly and/or as expressed through prayer and the service of others. Spouses are called to see Christ in the beloved. Thus, there is no idolatry in marital love. It is to the extent that they love and are faithful to each other that they love and are obedient to God. There is an incarnational element to this. God has joined himself to his creation. Something of the Creator is revealed now through creation. One should not feel “forced” into a relationship with “a creature”; rather, one should feel privileged to encounter the Lord through this sacramental relationship. It is an opportunity for grace.

The luck lies outside my spirit and is not under my control. My spirit should be united with God. And now I’m bound in a relationship with a creature, instead of being lucky within my own spirit and mind, through the help of God. Isn’t such a love against Christian attitude of mind? Is this the reason why being a monk is more good than being married?

FATHER JOE: Is it better to be a monk than being married? The evangelical counsels are given a heightened emphasis— that is for sure. But both the celibate religious life and married life are modes of discipleship and are graced opportunities for holiness. Celibacy is regarded as difficult and as the “road less traveled” in comparison to marriage. However, while one might be better than the other; both are good. Spouses are called to assist each other in becoming saints.

2. Is loving someone punishment from God? Can God make me love?

FATHER JOE: You made the choice to love a particular person by getting married. God expects you to keep your promises. Yes, we are commanded to love. Such is not punishment but an opportunity for discipleship.

3. If I would say love is no life-purpose and does not make me depending at all, than it would be only “nice play”, nothing deeply making sense. It would only be useful for distraction and time-filling. Lots of men fall for this idea. This is superficial and without sense. Am I right? Or is it the truth that women are for men’s pleasure? It would be better not to be loved than like this.

4. So where is the solution? Is it the freedom of spirit towards God alone, or dependence on a creature outside my own spirit and control?

FATHER JOE: Do you regard love as an emotion only? It is an act of the will. We place the needs of the beloved before ourselves. We want to make them happy. Spouses belong to each other. Your body, indeed the whole self with all your dreams is shared with the beloved. Love is not just sexual expression for the sake of physical pleasure. The marital act is the consummation and renewal of the spousal covenant with each other and with God. It signifies self-donation and reception. Neither one of you can be reduced to a tool for recreation. The commitment remains even if one spouse should not fully understand or struggles with selfishness and the carnal appetites.

In German only for emergency:

Ist es nicht schlimm dass der Lebensinhalt eines Menschen ausserhalb seiner liegt und einem anderen Menschen gehört? Das Glück liegt ausserhalb meines eigenen Geistes (der in Einigkeit mit Gott sein sollte) und zwingt mich zur Beziehung mit einem Geschöpf? ??!!!! Ist das nicht unchristlich so eine Liebe?Ist Liebe eine Strafe Gottes? Kann Gott einen lieben lassen? Würde man sagen, Liebe bedeute KEINEN Lebensinhalt und liesse einen GÄNZLICH unabhängig, würde sie zu bloßem Zeitvertreib degradieren, nur “nett” sein, nicht mehr. Viele Männer folgen diesem Irrtum. Das ist oberflächlich und ohne Sinn. Besser man träfe den so “geliebten” garnicht. Was ist die Lösung? ??
Ana, on June 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm said:

Father,

I hope this topic isn’t tiresome, but I have another question about my spiritual director, though it applies just as much to other men, too.

I’d mentioned having turmoil at home before. While my dad didn’t often actively say/do things to hurt me like mom, he didn’t stick up for me. He gave me many reasons, (he promised faithfulness to mom, he’d get trouble from mom himself if he disagreed at all, etc.), and mom supports those reasons. This stuff, along with something very bad involving my uncle, made me feel like I make people, men in particular, be unfaithful, to have the want to use or hurt me, whatever. I’m starting to realize how much this is negatively impacting my perception of men, and I think all of my concerns about how I interact with Father or any other priest come from this stuff. I feel like I corrupt people, and feel dirty/bad next to them.

So, long story short, what more can I do to change this mindset? I know; this question might be closer to psychology than spirituality, but I’m already seeing two counselors who don’t seem to have the answer I need. I’d wished for a long time that I could talk to Father himself about this problem, but was strongly advised not to by a friend of his; I feel I might make him think I’m weird anyways, or have an unhealthier attachment to him.

Lost but looking,
-Ana

FATHER JOE: Ana, You cannot help it if you are intelligent and attractive. There are girls who misuse their gifts for purposes of temptation; but you are obviously not of that sort. I guess what you have to get into your head and heart that this stuff you worry about is NOT YOUR FAULT. No one has a right to misuse or abuse you or anyone else. Instead of being apologetic about it, the time might be right for a little righteous indignation. We are taught as Christians to forgive; but mercy must never condone or rationalize evil. You are a person with dignity and rights. Growing up means we must encounter both the good and the bad. It is very painful when we discover or are touched by the weakness or evil of others. Sometimes caring about people will mean distance. And, at other times there may be necessary rebuke and correction. Your presence corrupts no one. You are not dirty for being human. Try to love and think of yourself as God knows you: a precious daughter.
Isabella, on June 18, 2013 at 7:55 pm said:

Hi. I’m 12 years old. My mother slapped me in the face because I didn’t kneel all the way down in adoration, and I sat in the back. Also, she thought I rolled my eyes, even though I didn’t. She later said that she was sorry, but also that I needed to be taught a lesson because I am was disrespectful. She has slapped me in the face once before, and used to drag me by the hair or ears quite often. My dad believes in God, but that’s it. He has no religion. My mom is a very devout Catholic who knows the Catholic faith well and follows its rules, but my dad says slapping me in the face isn’t right. My mom told me my dad just doesn’t understand because he doesn’t know The Faith. Who is right? Please help.

FATHER JOE: I am hesitant to tell parents about how they should discipline children. However, I am personally averse to any form of corporal punishment in church. It is one thing to protect the honor due to God; but as a young woman nothing should be done to undermine your dignity either. Pulling your hair or slapping you can be the cause of great personal embarrassment and long term resentment. Illustrate by your response that you know something about your Christian faith, too. I would urge you to forgive and pray for your mother. Pray for your father as well and do not work one against the other. I will pray that you and your family will know harmony and peace in the Lord.
Melissa, on June 17, 2013 at 11:38 pm said:

Thanks Father Joe!!
Bob, on June 17, 2013 at 11:35 pm said:

Thank you Father I like your answer, it always good to hear your wisdom and insight. God bless you.
agnes, on June 17, 2013 at 11:05 am said:

Thanks father. As far as i understood the sense of love is sacrificial love in the first place. Secondly you mentioned that a normal husband will seek to understand me as a person and my struggles with my sins. But there is no guarantee for that having success. Divorce is not allowed even if there’s a lack of understanding. But you mean if we have to know God whom we love than we should know the person we love, too. Sometimes someone doesn’t understand because he is ignorant and not willing. In that case it is a sin or own ideology. Or because of psychic disorder.

Last question: should a husband help to get rid of sins and the weak sides of a person leading to sin? Isn’t that also a part of sacrificial love? And if it is a part of it than the answer is clear: the husband must understand the struggles of the soul connected with or leading to sin. Right?

FATHER JOE: Husbands and wives should be helpmates with each other so as to grow in holiness.
agnes, on June 16, 2013 at 9:39 am said:

Halo. Here is the question in german.

1. Hat eine Frau damit zufrieden zu sein dass sie geliebt aber nicht verstanden wird? Daß ihr Freund oder Mann mit ihr nur mitfühlt aber nicht versteht? Oder muss der Mann sie tief verstehen? Oder reicht es wenn sein Herz für sie schlägt, er sie aber nicht versteht? (Z.B. wenn die Frau verrückt erscheint weil sie vergewaltigt wurde oder bessere Menschenkenntnis hat. Aber ihr Mann glaubt ihr nicht oder versteht sie nicht. Wenn er stumpf ist, naiv oder eiskalter “idiot”.)

2. Can I divorce from a man who does not understand me? Does it make sense to marry a man who loves but does not understand? Wie kann ich den Anspruch rechtfertigen verstanden zu werden? Ist das blind oder Egoismus?

3. Can a love be called love if it doesn’t mean to understand my beloved? Does love without understanding exist?

4. Muss mein Mann meine Sünden und seelische Leiden verstehen? Oder bleibe ich in diesem Bereich /concerning this area immer einsam weil meine Sünden so schlecht sind auch wenn ich geliebt werde? Does he have to understand my sins, too? For example alcoholism or murder?

Love without understanding is the concern of my questions.

FATHER JOE:

Dear Agnes,

The German makes what you are trying to say a bit easier to understand. Given the complexity of what you ask, my answer is nuanced. I would be embarrassed in trying to write in German; I hope you can interpret my English and that it gives proper answer to your queries.

FIRST POINT:

Is there love without understanding? Let us look to our posture before God. We are called to KNOW him, and to LOVE him, and to SERVE him. This is not merely a list of activities but the order itself is important. You cannot really love that which you do not know. That is the whole importance of revelation and to a lesser degree, natural philosophy. The latter can bring us to the realization that there is a higher power; however, we need revelation to appreciate that this God has called us into relationship with him. Of course, God is the omnipotent, omniscient and infinite Creator; we are merely finite creatures. Our knowing him can never exhaust the divine mystery. The truth be said, such is also the case in human relationships. Lovers are driven to know more and more about each other; nevertheless, even after fifty years of marriage, there are still differences and occasional surprises. This leads to the first part of my answer: spouses must know and understand each other, but neither of these operations is absolute.

People joke about the differences between men and women in how they think and feel about various matters. Several years ago there was a popular, if somewhat silly book about it, entitled Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. Using celestial metaphor it tried to decipher the differences. Speaking for myself, except for strong cultural expectations, it has been my experience that men and women generally think and feel the same ways about things. I suppose if I were to write a book, it would be called Men Are from Earth, Women Are from Earth. The general differences I encounter in counseling are often related to social expectations. Personal or individual idiosyncrasies are also often at the root of confusion in understanding. There is the further component of sin or selfishness. It is not always that people fail to understand, but that they chose not to care.

SECOND POINT:

The prohibition against divorce in the Gospel comes from the mouth of Jesus and is absolute. Annulments are sometimes granted but such implies a defect that was manifested against the union from the very beginning. The requirement for fidelity is not a man-made rule but belongs to God. There is no requirement that couples should perfectly understand each other; rather, the commitment is to love each other in a shared life.

If a man loves you he will probably try to understand you. Do you meet him part way? Do you clearly communicate your needs? Misunderstanding and/or ignorance is not grounds for annulment; that is unless it seriously impairs the vows and the ability to fulfill the basic duties of married life. It is wonderful if a spouse should be your soul-mate; however, miscommunication or finding that you dialogue easier with someone else is not grounds for separation.

At one point you mentioned the matter of rape. That is no slight issue. Men are called to defend the dignity of women. A man should regard his spouse in a protective and loving way. If this is not the case, then the problem is far deeper than understanding.

THIRD POINT:

Love requires something of knowledge or understanding, but not necessarily a great deal. A baby will rest comfortably in his mother’s arms. And yet, except for the sound of her voice and the gentleness of her touch, what does the infant actually know about his mother? Parents and children often do not understand each other; does this mean they love each other any less? No. Couples and families may suffer from all sorts of dysfunction; but such is not grounds for dissolution. If a spouse loves you and is faithful then you should do so in return. Love is NOT imaginative but very real when it is sacrificial. True love is not blind to faults but loves despite them.

FOURTH POINT:

Spouses are not obliged to reveal all the sins of their past, particularly those absolved by a priest. But there are few secrets that can be kept given the intimacy of the home. Your husband might understand your sins and inner struggles; certainly he would want to understand. Similar, you may know his weaknesses and faults. Pains as well as joy are matters that spouses share. What happens to one touches the other. I have heard it said that what makes matters difficult is that some wives expect husbands to have Christ’s power of reading minds. This may be too harsh or stereotypical. But I suspect there is a grain of truth in it. Maybe women are better at reading body-language or unspoken signals? I do not know, for sure. I recall one poor man whose wife yelled at him and he had no idea why she was upset. When he asked what was wrong, she responded: “You know what you did!” In truth, the poor man had no clue. Some things are best left in the past. Another dilemma to understanding is that some spouses suffer from mental disease, like paranoia and psychosis. Most common are bipolar conditions. One can sympathize but there is no rational understanding these mood swings and delusions. Medication helps but people often build up immunities or stop taking the prescribed drugs.

Untreated alcoholism makes it hard for a person to keep the promises of marriage. Unless there is a proven sobriety, marriage in the Catholic Church might not be possible. I am not sure how murder enters this equation. If your boyfriend has committed a capital crime; you are required to turn his name to the authorities. Having said this, I know couples who have strained relationships because of an evil like abortion.

If you have a bad marriage and no annulment is possible, then yes, you can never marry again. You are not promised perfect happiness in this life, only the next.
Bob, on June 16, 2013 at 2:03 am said:

I’d like to think that I have intelligence and rational thought. My question stems from a television series “Ancient Aliens.” What is the Church’s position if E.T comes to Earth? I think we would be arrogant to think we are the only intelligent life in the cosmos that God created. I know the Church has an observatory but I can’t find the information I’m looking for. What is your thought?

FATHER JOE: First, I would be cautious of the pseudo-science and mock-histories sometimes presented on the Discovery Channels. Second, the Catholic Church already believes in the existence of alien life: we call them angels. If there should prove to be other types of aliens in the universe, the Catholic Church will not find its teachings threatened in the least. There are a number of good science fiction novels available written from a Catholic perspective on this very topic. Let me know if you are interested in the titles. C.S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy gives some reflection over the matter of original sin and fallen man in comparison to proposed aliens on Mars and Venus. But, of course, as of right now, the matter is more science fiction than hard science. I think the notion of outer space aliens in earth’s past history is bogus.
Agnes, on June 15, 2013 at 8:28 pm said:

Halo,

First Question: Has one of two married or united people to make himself content with beeing loved and empathized through the other one, concerning hard experiences or problems? Or has the other one of the couple to understand his beloved deeply? Or on the contrary it is suffisent that the heart beats for his beloved, it is enough if one is loved, but not understood? For example if the woman was raped or if she has “paranoia” concerning the bad sidse of character of people and suffers from that, but she is right, and in both cases she appears to be crazy. But her husband or friend has not enough life experience to believe or understand her. Maybe he even is a litte stupid or cold or a complete naiv idiot.

2. … Can such a marriage be divorced? Does it make sense to marry such a misunderstanding person? And if it does not make sense, how can I justify the requirement to be understood, I mean isn’t it egoism or blindness to have such requirements?

3. Isn’t it a blind love or pure imagination that I can love without to understand? Is a love possible without to understand?

4. Has the one who loves to understand the sins of his beloved, too? and with them his undergo and suffering_ the one’s who sinned, connected with the sins? For expample alcoholism or murder? Or has the one who sinned to stay lonely for ever, in this sphere of his life and soul undergoes even if he or she is loved?

thanks Agnes

FATHER JOE: I take it that English is not your native language. Are you a German speaker? I cannot make out what you are trying to say. Please put it in your native language and maybe I can figure it out. Sorry, otherwise I would just be guessing. God bless!
Melissa, on June 15, 2013 at 12:11 am said:

Hi. I’ve recently started writing a novel in which there is a Roman Catholic funeral. Is there a website that can out line the full funeral and possibly the graveside prayers.

I’ve found a few that have Gensis, ashes to ashes, but then state that’s actually Anglican.

Thank you!
Melissa

FATHER JOE: The prayers are copyrighted. You will probably have to buy or borrow a ritual and then get permission from the USCCB / ICEL.
Rafael, on June 13, 2013 at 7:48 pm said:

Is a sin to watch an abortion like in youtube to learn rather then for entertainment. What about people being murdered? I encountered some videos in which mullahs killed an outsider because he was not Muslim. I can’t stomach seeing this but is it a sin to watch it? Some people have to look at the evidence and have to watch murders in order to solve cases, but for regular people is it a sin to watch? Let me make this clear, my intention is never to amuse myself with others’ pain.

FATHER JOE: People may witness crimes for purposes of seeking justice but we should never find entertainment in another’s pain. People who watch and take delight in such things (like sexual violence, torture and murder) do indeed commit sin.
Tom, on June 13, 2013 at 6:02 pm said:

Hey Father Joe, quick quesion. Do you know if animals will ever get saved during or after the rapture? Do they get to ascend? Thanks.

Here is a post on the subject written some time back: Do Animals Go to Heaven?
nana1954, on June 12, 2013 at 2:49 am said:

P. S. This is the blog post that I originally read from az4christ: [link deleted]

FATHER JOE:

Okay, I followed the link and here is my take…

The post on the blog you cited sought to show one reason why Catholics and Mormons are not Christian. Aside from the blogger’s argumentation, Catholicism has serious reservations about the Mormon form of Christianity, particularly the polytheistic teaching and the compromise of Christ as the unique Redeemer. However, the doctrines of the Latter Day Saints seem to be evolving towards a more monotheistic view. We can hope that such will also include an orthodox Christology. This having been said, the Mormons are a deeply religious people with strong moral values and a love for family.

I cannot say that I was impressed by any genius from the blogger. While he would contend that Catholicism strips God of his glory; nothing could be further from the truth. Our worship and discipleship is all about giving honor to God. The prayer of divine praise is the most foundational of prayers and reflects the action of the angels and saints in heaven. The blogger lists God’s attributes, just as we might find in a Catholic child’s second-grade religion primer. We regularly pray that “all glory and praise” belongs to him. We were made in his image (our spiritual nature). Indeed, the divine and human are joined in Jesus Christ. The saving work of Christ makes possible our restoration to the likeness of God (by grace). All the perfections are found in God. He is all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, all-holy, all-just, all-merciful, etc. The Creator is present in all things and keeps them in existence. He is the source of life. Changing topics, the blogger next talks about marriage and he is quite right that the analogy is made (see St. Paul) between a husband and wife with Christ and the Church. So far, so good, but then the blogger makes a fatal trip.

Illogically he jumps to the statement that “the Catholic and Mormon Church is none of the things” he has mentioned. But he has not really talked about anything except divine attributes and then marriage. There was nothing about ecclesial attributes. We find these in the Creed, the four marks of the true Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

He accuses the Church of violating God’s Word. He condemns Catholic doctrine and practice as idolatry. But no details are given. Instead, he jumps to further disconnected statements about man’s fallen nature and confused statements about Scripture and the Gospel. He makes no sense and such is not because he is smarter than the rest of us but rather because his ideas have no real focus. It is almost a stream of consciousness type of religion with a little bigotry thrown into the mix. Certainly he seems to espouse a privatized religion where there is no earthly mediation or intercession; but such a religion does not exist. Unless faith is shared and Bibles are translated and printed, he would not get very far. It is true that we cannot save ourselves but we can certainly cooperate with the one who can save us, Jesus Christ. The Spirit of God is alive in us and in the Church.

How do we really glorify God? We keep faith in his Son, give God the worship that is his due, and we realize our obedience to him in the life of charity. The old catechism answer still applies. We are called to KNOW God, to SERVE God and to GIVE GLORY to God, in this world and forever in the next. Does the poor blogger even appreciate this much?

He calls the Catholic Church unbiblical and yet she is the MOTHER of the Bible. He blasphemes the work of the Holy Spirit by saying that Catholics are unredeemed and that we practice “willful disobedience.” What does he mean by this? Are our hospitals not helping the sick? Should we shut down our schools? Would he condemn our worldwide Catholic Charities operations? Are we not the loudest voice crying out against abortion and for traditional marriage? We worship God and keep the commandments. We may use images, but we do not worship them. We take seriously the change in the economy of images made possible by the Incarnation. What about our martyrs for the faith, those who suffered and died for Christ? Were their sacrifices in vain? He does not elaborate; I suppose he feels it is proof enough to make charges.

The Catholic Church still preaches the ancient summons, “Repent and believe!” But I guess we do not speak it loud enough for the anti-Catholic to hear. He says that God may be “glorified by our lousy performance” as long as we are not Catholics, I suppose. He gets small bits right but the big picture and context is all wrong. This is how Catholicism would express it: God does not call us to be successful, only faithful.

He concludes by making slurs against the Church: that she does not trust God’s Word, that we do not live up to the standards of God, that the rules of men are given precedence, and that we are “accepting of unredeemed goats to imposter God’s precious sheep and corrupt or harm the flock.” Of course, in all this he is presumptuous of his own righteousness and too quick to usurp God’s authority in damning others. He really is a poor confused soul who desperately needs prayer.

His final arrow is against “works salvation” but he does not offer any further explanation. It seems that he buys into the once saved, always saved notion. Such was not biblical and even many of the reformation Protestants shied away from totally denouncing the value of works. Works apart from Christ, as for one in mortal sin or without faith, have no value. But greater is he who lives in me than he who lives in the world. We are supposed to allow Christ to live and work in us by grace. The works of Christ always have saving merit.

God is given no real glory by such remarks from Az4christ.
nana1954, on June 12, 2013 at 2:45 am said:

Hi Father Joe,

Although not Catholic, I have had a life-long fascination with the Catholic Church, and I do follow your blog. A few months ago, I came upon a blogger who is VERY anti-Catholic — well, he is anti anything that doesn’t take the Bible literally, word for word. His latest diatribe is against the Mormons. Say what you will about them, I have lived in SLC for over 20 years — they are my “peeps.” Do I believe what their church teaches? NO! Do I have issues with the way my children were ostracized? YES! But, they are my neighbors and my friends — “Love your neighbor as yourself.” And, they have the BEST Family History Library in the world. And, SLC is a whole lot cleaner (literally and metaphorically!) than any city in the D.C. area. :D)

Anyway, this anti-anything-that-doesn’t-believe-the-way-he-does person, really got under my skin. Unfortunately, although I minored in Religious Studies, I do not know enough, nor am I confident enough, to debate this man. I am wondering if you would take a look at his blog and chime in???? He does not post comments on his blog and I would LOVE to read what you write and how he responds. Is there a way of emailing you privately?

His blog address is: [web address deleted]

Thanks so much, Father Joe.

Blessings,
Dayna

FATHER JOE: My email is listed on the blog (see ABOUT). I am not much for challenging others on their blogs. I tend to simply respond to those who post comments on mine. I will take a peek. God bless you!
Barbara Jeanne, on June 10, 2013 at 9:35 pm said:

Father, what can you tell me about the Galactic Archangel Michael Light Federation? It is all over the internet now and some Christians I know are interested in following them.

FATHER JOE: It is a cult mixing the themes of angels and UFO’s. I would recommend that everyone avoid them. As to whether it is merely a delusional scam or something directly demonic, I cannot say. However, as a Catholic priest I am confident in saying that it is NOT from God.
Irv, on June 10, 2013 at 9:26 pm said:

The Rapture is Anti-Catholic

Many assert that the “rapture” promoted by evangelicals was first taught, at least seminally, by a Jesuit Catholic priest named Francisco Ribera in his 16th century commentary on the book of Revelation.

To see what is claimed, Google “Francisco Ribera taught a rapture 45 days before the end of Antichrist’s future reign.” (Oddly, many claimants are anti-Catholic and merely “use” Ribera in order to “find” much earlier support for their rapture which actually isn’t found in any official Christian theology or organized church before 1830!)

After seeing this claim repeated endlessly without even one sentence from Ribera offered as proof, one widely known church historian decided to go over every page in Ribera’s 640-page work published in Latin in 1593.

After laboriously searching for the Latin equivalent of “45 days” (“quadraginta quinque dies”), “rapture” (“raptu,” “raptio,” “rapiemur,” etc.) and other related expressions, the same scholar revealed that he couldn’t find anything in Ribera’s work even remotely resembling a prior rapture! (Since the same scholar plans to publish his complete findings, I won’t disclose his name.)

Are you curious about the real beginnings of this evangelical belief (a.k.a. the “pre-tribulation rapture”) merchandised by Darby, Scofield, Lindsey, Falwell, LaHaye, Ice, Van Impe, Hagee and many others?

Google “The Unoriginal John Darby,” “Pretrib Rapture Diehards,” “X-Raying Margaret,” “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “Walvoord Melts Ice,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Wily Jeffrey,” “Deceiving and Being Deceived” by D.M., “The Real Manuel Lacunza,” “Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism,” “Pretrib Rapture Politics,” “Pretrib Hypocrisy” (anti-Catholic examples), “Famous Rapture Watchers,” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” – most of these by the author of the 300-page nonfiction book “The Rapture Plot,” the highly endorsed and most accurate documentation on the long hidden historical facts of the 182-year-old pre-tribulation rapture theory imported from Britain during the late 19th century.