Apologetics | Blogger Priest

German Summit, Shades of Martin Luther

Posted on February 20, 2020 by Father Joe

The recent manipulation of the Amazonian synod by German churchmen and now their own two-year summit hints at a coming religious revolution. It echoes the division and devastation enacted by Martin Luther. The disgruntled monk similarly sought alliances with dissenting religious leaders and earthly rulers. The princes of old are gone but the secular politics of the world are still every bit as opposed to the interests of the Catholic Church as they were before. While Catholicism has moved forward at the pace dictated by providence and the Holy Spirit; we are again a church plagued by scandals and not with one heresy but assaulted by all of them under the heading of modernism.

The German Summit Begins

The first assembly for the German summit was from January 30 to February 1, 2020. Pointing to an atmosphere of rebellion, Cardinal Reinhard Marx made it clear last year that this synod would continue despite objections from Pope Francis. Arguably more Protestant than Catholic, the Central Committee of German Catholics rebuked Pope Francis for a “lack of courage for real reforms” after the promulgation of his Post-Synodal Exhortation (To the People of God and to All Persons of Good Will the Church in the Amazon). Disappointed, but unwilling to give in on the reforms he has championed, Cardinal Marx of Münich asserted that the topics from the synod were “by no means off the table.”

If the subject matter is something that cannot be changed then what is the purpose of such discussions? Are we stirring the pot to ferment trouble or might we find answers that respect the truth, tradition and the needs of a changing world? Praxis must follow and safeguard doctrinal truth. When it takes the lead there is no assurance that it is in fidelity with what is right or good. Further, we must be honest as to the sources of formation. Are new ideas and stratagems emerging from revelation and the sources of doctrine or from outside the parameters of our constant faith? Religious relativism and indifference have now made space for defection to other “denominations” or even for the faithless slide into the new atheism. It seems to me that such was unavoidable given the relativism of truth to human whim and secular expediency.

Artificial Contraception

While all Christian churches condemned artificial contraception for 1,900 years, today Catholicism is viewed by her own congregants as backward and out-of-sync among liberal and conservative believers alike. Back in the 1960’s and the first days of the Vatican reforms and Humanae Vitae, the controversy on this issue should have awakened us to the core problem that would revisit us in other matters ready to explode like divorce, abortion and same-sex bonds.

Unfortunately, we did a poor job of communicating the Church’s rich Christian anthropology. The incarnation of Christ grants prominence to the dignity of human persons and the sanctity of life. Persons are not interchangeable. While animated by immortal souls, the body is not unimportant. We are not spirits operating extraneous or robotic bodies of flesh and blood. Unlike the angels we are not pure spirits. A body without a soul is a corpse. A soul without a body is a ghost. The integrated human person is properly a body and soul. This is how we live and relate to one another. The sacrament of marriage, along with its obligations and duties, focuses on this reality of human beings as corporeal persons. We are our bodies. While love cannot be contained to this world, marriage is a reality that ends at the door of death. We are promised that we will be like angels and yet with Christ’s resurrection, we are given a clue as to the glorification of the body that awaits us and our restoration, body and soul. Our understanding of identity embraces an intense appreciation of the human person as a corporeal-spiritual composite.

Gender is not an accidental but rather touches the central meaning of who and what we are. There is a complementarity of sexes, and while there is an equality in grace it is not mathematical. We are different. It is this difference that draws men and women together. How we are made is also how we relate and communicate. God has a plan for us and we are called to discern this plan. When it comes to married couples, there is a basic failure to appreciate that the marital act is more than the mechanics of the sex act but is a profound self-donation to the beloved that trusts the will of God and selflessly embraces the mystery and treasure of human life. Couples that would define their relationships by contraceptive acts, short-change their calling and the openness to life that is a hallmark of their vocation.

The problem of contraception is not a new question although technology has come a long way from the Egyptian use of crocodile dung. The Church saw it as an offense against the first command of Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. Families can be both responsible and open to the gift of life. They can cooperate with God instead of treating God as the enemy and his gift and blessing of children as a disease to be medicated away.

Divorce and Remarriage

While it has been very much in the news, especially given an apparent lack of clarity from Pope Francis, it must be proposed that the Catholic Church still accepts Christ for his word when he condemns divorce and exposes its link to adultery. Unless it is unlawful (the reason why there is an annulment process), marriage endures until the death of a spouse. The Catholic Church stands almost alone in this teaching as many of the Orthodox churches permit second penitential bonds and most Protestant churches will bless unions with divorcees or even with persons of the same sex. As a sacrament, we are supposed to see in marriage something of Christ’s relationship with his Church. Promises are made and Christ keeps his promises. We should pursue the same fidelity.

When it comes to marriage, few churchmen are ogres who want to hurt others. We realize that mistakes can be made. Many of the irregular unions also include children and a genuine desire to return to the sacraments. How do we work with them without destroying the basic meaning of the sacrament? Annulments, properly and honestly done, are part of the solution. Just as married priests in the early days of the Church were asked to embrace perfect continence, might this suggest an answer in certain situations? Can we be more proactive at the beginning of relationships so as to reduce the number of failed marriages? We certainly emphasize that even if couples cannot be invited forward to receive Holy Communion, they should still go to Mass and render God the worship due to him as believers. We are all sinners and all sinners should know that they will never be turned away from the church doors even if they should refrain from coming to the altar. The Mass is still the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. I suspect that there were many on the hill of Christ’s death who were similarly drawn to Jesus and his message but remained ill-disposed to fully benefit from the sacramental moment.

Same-Sex Unions and Homosexual Acts

Older Christians have experienced a reversal in how homosexuals are viewed and treated. The revulsion and prohibition against homosexuality once shared between the Church and state has been turned totally on its head. What was regarded as a perversion and as illegal is now reckoned by secular society as good, permissible and as something which must be actively promoted. Those who oppose homosexual sin are now reckoned as bigots. Indeed, laws are increasingly targeting believers who want to be tolerant or co-exist but cannot find it in themselves to celebrate what they understand as wrong and as grievous sin.

When it comes to the matter of same-sex relationships, is there a way to acknowledge love and friendship outside of the paradigm of matrimony? Might we recover an expanded appreciation of chaste brotherhood and sisterhood? Could it be that the prevalent eroticism of our times has poisoned this issue?

Abortion and the Sanctity of Life

The issue of abortion is particularly troublesome as the news parades Catholic politicians clapping and cheering the removal of any and all restrictions upon the termination of pregnancies. Literally children nine months in the womb and ready to be born are now vulnerable to what is more infanticide than abortion. The Church proclaims a Gospel of Life that is increasing politicized and made one issue among many. The Church would still proclaim that if one’s life is taken then for that person there are no more issues. We are not opposed to the genuine rights of women. We refuse to engage in the culture of death’s great deception. The Catholic Church defends the rights of everyone. We give voice to the voiceless. The Church speaks up for the rights of all women and some of those women are in the womb.

The issue of abortion can certainly be expanded for a better defense of life in scenarios of war and non-combatants, the elderly and euthanasia and the value or lack thereof of the death penalty in crime prevention, etc. However, this is not a pick-and-choose list. If a person is pro-abortion but opposed to capital punishment, he or she is not pro-life. We need to appreciate the non-commensurate value of human life wherever it exists.

Holy Orders as Restricted to Men

The question of holy orders is frequently considered within the apologetic of power and rights. It should rather be understood in the context of service and gift. The pattern that Jesus gave us is not one upon which we are free to diverge. He selected only men as his apostles, despite the fact that there were notable women who witnessed as prophets to the Gospel: his Mother Mary, the sisters of Lazarus (Martha and Mary), the Samaritan woman at the well, Mary Magdalene and others. The early councils like Nicea forbade the laying on of hands or ordination of women. The solemn proclamation of St. Pope John Paul II on the subject was definitive and infallible. Only some men and no women are called to be priests. However, the priesthood is a gift to all of us who participate at Mass and in the sacraments. We share our differing gifts for the good of the whole body. No one has a right to the priesthood. There is no egalitarian equivalence between men and women, although both are equally invited to faith, baptism and grace. One can prepare for priesthood but no one deserves it. It is purely a gift. If women cannot be priests or bishops then they are logically also prevented from membership in the third tier of holy orders, the diaconate. The evidence is that women in the New Testament who were called deaconesses were not ordained. They cared for female neophytes preparing for baptism. In certain cases, they were simply the wives of ordained deacons.

We can look for ways to include more women in decision-making, but holy orders will never be open to them. Not only does the tradition not support it, there is evidence of opposition to the prospect. The witness of the Anglicans is insignificant because apostolic succession was already compromised and they responded to the cries of modernity, not to the dictates of Scripture and Tradition.

Value in the Discipline of Priestly Celibacy

Further, the gift of priesthood or holy orders cries out for a single-hearted love. While a discipline, there is an integral relationship between the priesthood and the charism of celibacy. (This subject was of such importance that many married men in the apostolic and patristic age were required to pursue perfect continence when they were ordained.) Given that the Holy Father picked the name FRANCIS for his pontificate, I am not surprised that he has resisted calls to allow married men to serve as priests in the Amazon. Traditionally, celibacy is interpreted as an element of apostolic POVERTY and is appreciated in the context of Jesus’ encounter with the rich man who went away sad “because his possessions were many.”

The Council of Nicea (325 AD) forbade the laying on of hands or ordination of women.
The Council of Carthage (390) commanded celibacy or perfect continence for priests.
The First Lateran Council (1123) & the Second Lateran Council (1139) prohibited clerical marriage and cohabitation.

A Few Closing Thoughts

What is it exactly that the extended German summit hopes to achieve by its assessment of Catholic sexual morality and the dynamics of priestly life in regard to celibacy and the role of women? The American bishops following Pope John Paul II’s 1995 letter to women also promulgated a pastoral “reflection” on women (after much consultation where dissenters tried to hijack the discussion). The bishops attempted to make appeasement where the Holy Father inadvertently made enemies of certain progressives and radical feminists. However, in the end their effort was so watered down that it was of little lasting value, restricting itself to the unexplored themes of leadership, equality, and the diversity of gifts. The focus moved away from women in the Church to their general place in society. This is not to say that the document lacks utility for future discussions about the extension of praxis that respects the laws of nature and the revealed truths of God. When it comes to the new German effort, it appears that dissenting lay Catholic organizations are being given more a voice than those with a significant traditional faith footprint. Theologians can assist the Magisterium but they are not the Church’s teaching authority, themselves.

Filed under: Abortion, Adultery, Annulment, Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Commandments, Discipleship, Divorce, Family, Fornication, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pope, Pope Francis, Priestesses, Priests, Religion, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Women Priests | 1 Comment »

Women & The Priesthood

Posted on December 11, 2018 by Father Joe

154394781759216217 (7)

Given that women are excluded from the sacrament of Holy Orders, does this mean that in the Catholic Church there are seven sacraments for men and only six for women? How is this fair? What are we to tell young women who feel a calling to ministry?

While some critics contend that Jesus only selected men as his apostles given the prejudices and chauvinistic conventions of his times, there are many instances where Jesus raised up the dignity of women and highlighted their call to witness and service. How could Jesus extend spiritual liberation to us if he were not free to do as he pleased? Indeed, the fact that he is a sign of contradiction that is betrayed and murdered is a testimonial of his freedom. He would do what is right and is not subject to coercion. He shows us the way to true freedom. When it comes to his dealings with women, he cherishes them as disciples and prophets, but not as apostles or priests.

The first relationship that comes to mind is with his Mother. She is a strong and courageous woman, who self-proclaims herself as the handmaid of the Lord. If the tradition be true then she is learned of her faith due to her service as a child-servant in the temple. Mary is present at the most important moments of salvation history: at the annunciation, at the presentation in the temple, at the start of Christ’s public ministry in Cana, at his passion and death upon the Cross on Calvary and as a witness of the risen Lord among the eleven in the Upper Room. There are also the two faithful sisters of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. There is the repentant and faithful Mary Magdalene. Indeed, there is the exceptional Samaritan woman who encounters Jesus at the well and then testifies about him to her people. Nevertheless, while Jesus is willing to break with the conventions of his day; he still only selects men to be his apostles or his first bishop-priests. This is a pattern that would remain unbroken. Indeed, the early councils (as at Nicea) would forbid the “laying on of hands” or ordination of women.

The Gnostic heretics ordained women but they also denied the incarnation. They taught that Jesus only pretended to be a man and as one subject to death. Since matter and the body were given a negative value, they did not perceive an issue with priestesses as an alternative to priests. Catholic Christianity has always insisted that matter is not inherently evil and that it cannot be subtracted or ignored in the equation of redemption. Our Lord joined himself to humanity in a male body. This flesh was integral to his identity. Indeed, we are promised restoration as ensouled bodies.

Gender is not an accidental to who we are. We are not angels or pure spirits. This truth is discerned in all the sacraments which are signified by form and matter. Baptism requires water (matter) and the words that invoke the name of the Trinity (form). The Eucharist requires bread and wine (matter)along with the words of consecration (form). Ordination requires the intention to ordain priests with the laying on of hands (form) upon men (matter) called to ministry. One could not baptize with beer. One could not celebrate the Mass with milk and cookies. One could not ordain a woman substituted for a man.

The pattern established by Jesus brought no derision upon the dignity of women but neither was it a pattern that the Church felt free to alter in any manner. Given that our faith is in the person of Jesus Christ, then we must acknowledge that he knew what he was doing and that it served his purposes. Pope St. John Paul II in his 1994 encyclical Ordonatio Sacerdotalis, infallibly taught, once and for all, that the Catholic Church has no power whatsoever to ordain women to the priesthood. Many churchmen may very much want to ordain women. But the Church is faithful to Christ, even if there should be matters we do not fully understand. If we violated the pattern given by Christ, then the whole Church would be jeopardized. The Episcopalians or Anglicans may be in this situation. Orders in the Anglican Church were deemed null-and-void given a change in their prayer book after the break with Rome. About a century passed where the intention to ordain priests who make sacrifice was edited from their rituals. Apostolic succession was lost. Some have argued that it might be partially restored today through the participation of former Catholics in their ranks and Orthodox bishops at their ordinations. Unfortunately, even if there should be a partial restoration, it is further jeopardized by the presence of women presbyters and bishops. If their ordination is counter to the will of Christ, then all the Anglicans are doing is playing dress up. There are no true women priests (or rather, priestesses) in Christianity. If the Catholic Church were to follow suit and attempt to ordain women, it would place the sacraments at stake. If the priest is a sham then the Mass and absolution for sins would be forfeited as well. The equation is simple: no priesthood = no Eucharist = no Church.

The pattern of Jesus in selecting men and not women for the priesthood is normative for all ages. Any change would require a new revelation from the Lord. Not even the pope has the authority to change this teaching and practice.

The one who would extend the Holy Spirit to the Church is himself filled with the Spirit. His every step is aligned with divine providence. His miraculous works and signs are enabled by the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit preserves the Church in the truth, especially about those most essential elements of faith. The apostles are made the first of his ministers of a long-line throughout history, extending his proclamation of the Good News and realizing his saving works in the sacraments he instituted. The male-only priesthood emerges as part of his plan for the legacy and life of the Church. God does not fumble or make mistakes, even when the men chosen are sometimes less than saintly.

The first apostles were Jews but later Jews and Gentiles would be chosen. Some of those chosen were married, but there was a growing emphasis upon celibacy from the beginning. However, while the apostles and priests were married and single, Jew and Gentile, not one of the successors chosen would ever be a woman. This is the case all the way to the present day. This two-thousand-year consistency speaks volumes about the will of Christ upon the matter of ordination. The tradition is clear and uninterrupted, century after century.

The Church also makes use of the bridal analogy that we see in Scripture, especially in the writings of St. Paul. The substitution of a woman would destroy this ancient analogy and wrongly signify a lesbian relationship of a bride to a bride. The priest stands at the altar “in the person of Christ” the groom and head of his bride, the Church. The priest is a living and breathing icon or image of Christ. Certain religious traditions demand that the priest have a beard, an “accidental” that makes self-evident the “substantial” element of his maleness which he shares with Jesus Christ.

Years ago I recall an interview where certain women who had undertaken theological training and had a background of church service, demanded that they be ordained priests. They were angry and claimed the Church was deaf to their cries. They said that they deserved to be priests— that they had earned it. But such an attitude is counter to the truth about the priesthood. Even men with such a mentality would probably best not be ordained.

The priesthood is not something that one might earn as in a social justice agenda. The underlying meaning comes out at the foot washing by Jesus of his apostles. Those who would lead the faith community must become the servants of all. The priesthood is a gift that must be exploited in giving. The priest lives for others. He preaches God’s Word, not his own. His very reason for living is the forgiveness of sins. He makes present the Lord, both in his sacramental presence and in his saving activity. Never in the history of the world had God given such authority to men as he did with his priesthood. And yet, ironically, the priesthood is not about personal power and prestige. It is about being the servant of all, literally a slave to honor God and to serve the needs of God’s people. His servanthood is a fundamental imitation of Christ (Mark 10:45).

It would be wrong to say that there are seven sacraments for men and only six for women. Most men and all women will never be ordained priests. However, all the laity, men and women, are summoned to participate with their priest at Mass. The celebrant makes possible the offering of the congregants at the liturgy. Along with the gifts of bread and wine, believers join themselves to Christ— as grafted to him— as one oblation within the Lamb of God and accepted by the heavenly Father. We pray, not only that bread and wine will become the flesh and blood of Christ, but that all of us may be transformed by grace into the likeness of Christ. It is in this sense that the priesthood enables our own faith and our own oblations. We are united in the Mass and the priest’s absolution insures our growth in holiness. Our universal and most essential vocation is not to the priesthood but to holiness. All of us are called to be saints.

Filed under: Apologetics, Apostles, Catholic, Church, Fatherhood, Incarnation, Liturgy, Priestesses, Priests, Religion, Sacraments, Saints, Sexuality, Sin, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

The Proper Response to Scandal is Not Defection

Posted on October 22, 2018 by Father Joe

ARTICLE: “Want to leave the Catholic Church? Officially you can’t” by Dan Waidelich.

SOURCE & DATE: Washington Post – October 22, 2018.

REFLECTION:

The reporter notes that Mary Combs left the Church 15 years ago over the clergy sexual abuse scandals in Boston. We are told that she looked at “the collection basket, imagining the money paying off victims.”

While one can readily appreciate how terribly she was disheartened, there was nothing particularly noble or heroic about her personal defection. While such scandals, then and now, should make the laity angry— the proper response is not to run away but to stick it out and fight. It may be that the clergy are overly identified with the faith; but the laity constitutes the largest segment of the Church. She should have looked at that collection basket and realized that “there” in the purse strings is power to compel reform. This is not blackmail. The laity as a matter of justice can demand that the resources they share go to building up the kingdom and not be squandered in covering up for sin or for appeasing greed and ambition.

Unfortunately, anger spoke louder than her own calling or mission as a disciple. Indeed, it also eclipsed the many needs that emerge from charity toward the poor and the hurting. Despite the presence of evil in her ministerial ranks, the Church still does much good for the disadvantaged and the oppressed. Indeed, Catholic Charities is the largest and most active social outreach organization, just behind the U.S. government. Mary Combs walked away from that element of her discipleship in the Church because she was upset by weak and sinful men.

Judas signified one-twelfth of the world’s bishop-priests in 33 AD. He betrayed Christ and later committed suicide. Did everyone who had followed Christ leave the Church because of his sin? No. They realized that despite human iniquity, Jesus was indeed their Messiah, Savior and Lord. Peter, the first of many popes of the Church, fearfully denied even knowing Christ when Jesus was being tried. Nevertheless, our resurrected Lord would respond to his affirmations of love by restoring his authority as the visible head of the Church. Just as we shake our heads today at the clericalism of our priests and how ambition sometimes overshadows servanthood, we can also recall James and John asking for a special place at Christ’s right and left. Similarly, the apostles argue among themselves as to who is the greatest. And yet, when the going got tough, all but John ran and went into hiding. At the Last Supper they had each been given the authority sacramentally to re-present the mystery of Christ’s paschal mystery and his saving oblation in “memory” of him. But when they had the opportunity to walk physically with Christ to Calvary, there was only one apostle who accompanied him to the Cross so as to witness the mystery firsthand.

“Now there’s this Pennsylvania scandal,” Combs said. “Hundreds of priests abusing thousands of parishioners and a coverup that went all the way to the Vatican — again.” We are told that she now attends Grace Lutheran Church in Virginia. This is no solution either. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. While even Protestant churches have their own scandals, they are historically also breakaway institutions from Catholic unity. They may possess certain saving elements which they took with them from Catholicism, i.e. the Scriptures, faith in Christ and baptism. Sadly, they have also forfeited a genuine priesthood and Eucharist. This signals that her defection is rooted, not just in a repugnance to clerical scandal, but in a lack of a true and complete Christian faith. We are told that she took comfort when the Pennsylvania stories broke, in knowing that she was done with Catholicism. Unfortunately, while we leave judgment to God, he will judge her not as a Lutheran but as a Catholic.

The current scandals should not confirm Mary Combs and those like her in their defection. Indeed, it should be a clarion call for all to come back and to make right that which has gone wrong. Those who have courageously stayed with the Church must demand a full accounting of past misdeeds, transparency in the future and a purging of those persons from ministry who can no longer be trusted. There needs to be a genuine purification and reform. This must be done by those who have remained faithful and those who have repented of their own failures or defection so as not to be part of the problem but of the solution.

Jesus instituted the Church and gave us ministers and sacraments so as to provide for his people. He did not say that the Church would always be perfect, only that he would sustain her and that she would be made holy by the bridegroom, Christ. The devil has had a hand in the corruption of churchmen. Violations of priestly celibacy as with other sins can be healed by our merciful Lord and even forgiven by God’s faithful people; however, those who have harmed minors and those who have engaged in same-sex acts have no place in the priesthood.

The Washington Post article, while heavily focused on the issue of clergy abuse, actually targeted the question as to whether one could technically leave the Catholic Church. Rev. Thomas Ferguson, vicar general of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Va., affirmed what Catholics should already know that it is impossible to defect from the Catholic Church. Our affiliation with the Catholic faith is stamped upon our souls at baptism. It is the Church directly instituted by Christ. Any movement away from that Church distances us from our Lord.

The original Protestant churches were regarded as groupings of fallen-away or lapsed Catholics. Over time, many were born and raised in these communities, never juridically united or formed within the fullness of the Catholic faith community. What might merit them through ignorance will not satisfy for Catholics who should know better.

Filed under: Apologetics, Apostles, Archdiocese, Bishops, Celibacy, Church, Discipleship, Faith, Forgiveness, Heaven, Homosexuality, Mass, Morality, News, Religion, Repentance | 1 Comment »

The Ascendant Laity & Reform

Posted on October 8, 2018 by Father Joe

153901311384687144 (1)

There is increased tension about the role of laity on review boards and in taking leadership efforts to stem abuse of the young and corruption in the Church. On one side, many traditionalists do not want clergy conceding authority of any sort to the laity. However, given that the clergy, and particularly bishops, currently have very little moral standing among God’s people, they really have no choice— not if they want the Church to return to good health. The other side opposes an increased role of “certain” laity, and here I would agree, albeit from the opposite pole of fidelity. The laity must be a genuine “sensus fidelium” and not one populated by dissenters who would create an entirely new church. The progressive voices want more than an overhaul; they want a full-blown revolution where the doors would be opened to married priests, women clergy, lay trustee ownership of all Church properties, full acceptance of divorce and subsequent unions, of homosexuals and other emerging sexualities, and a communion table open to all. It is this group that is fearful of orthodox laity. While the clergy can be manipulated in labeling the crisis as one of pedophilia, it would be much more difficult to compromise faithful laity into being silent about the true malady which is a homosexuality infestation of Church leadership.

153901311384687144

The faithful laity has the will and the money to get to the root of the Church’s problems, and many (clergy and dissenting laity) want those roots to remain safely hidden in the ground. Which is preferable, to allow investigations to remain exclusively in the hands of secular or civil authorities who often have a negative animus or real hatred toward the Church; or to allow orthodox laity who love the Church an opportunity to expose the truth about the current scandal so that there might be a necessary purification, restoration and healing? We want men and women committed both to the faith and to the truth, regardless of the immediate consequences. Bishops have shown that they cannot police themselves. Lower ranked clergy too easily become passive pawns to authority. We should not underestimate the fear that many priests feel. Their priesthood is not a job but their identity. Their ordinaries or bishops can easily make or break them— giving them opportunities for rewarding ministries or locking them away with meaningless closeted assignments or sending them to real hell holes where they will be ill-equipped to survive. Most laity respect their bishops but they are not under their thumbs. They have sufficient autonomy to act.

The dissenters, among the bishops and the laity, are quick to reject investigative efforts from the orthodox laity. Even prior to any such work, they are already accusing them of gay-bashing. They mock them as hardliners obsessed by sex. But this issue is precisely about sex, more directly, about the homosexual acts between clergy and other men or teenagers. This is well over 90% of the actual problem. The dissenters would have us dismiss this and focus on the 2% or less that deals with children and possibly girls. The orthodox faithful and clergy are not Puritans or Jansenists. They acknowledge the beautiful teachings on the Theology of the Body that come from St. John Paul II. There is no derision of the marriage bed between men and women. But sex outside of marriage is a sin. Homosexual acts are always outside of marriage and the attraction is a grave disorder. It is not neutral. We are called to love and respect our “gay” brothers and sisters. As with the priesthood, we would urge them to embrace an authentic and faithful celibate manner of loving. Because of the danger of scandal brought to ministry, the Church should exclude from priesthood all homosexuals who have had sexual encounters. This is not bigoted hate-speech but the necessary bottom line. These critics who argue otherwise must not be given their way as they offer no solutions and are part of the problem, itself.

The liberal critics are infuriated that a priest who violates his vows must be expelled from the priesthood. They employ an analogy in regard to marriage. They would ask, “Would we insist upon the end of a marriage when a man sins against his matrimonial vows?” They have a point here, but only to a point. Much depends on how the vows are broken, the level of contrition and amendment of life and the willingness of the spouse to forgive. As to the manner of violation, there is voyeurism, pornography, prostitution, adultery (with another woman), homosexually disordered acts and incest. A union might come to a practical end because it is a sham or dehumanizing to the spouse or a threat to her and the children. As for a priest, an infidelity with a woman might indeed be forgiven, particularly after a period of counsel and spiritual reflection. His bride the Church is very merciful, even though it would be best to restart his ministry somewhere else far from the person of temptation.

However, if his vows are broken through an abusive act, particularly of a minor or child, he can never be restored to ministry. We do not want rapists of any sort in our active priesthood. The safety of God’s people must always come first. If the violation was a homosexual one, even with a consenting male, then he must also be stripped of his faculties and laicized. We cannot risk predation upon altar boys, seminarians or young priests. A priest must have a certain moral standing and there are certain acts that are so depraved that it is impossible to restore his full sacerdotal dignity and moral authority. Such a priest must go.

Filed under: Apologetics, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Devil, Discipleship, Modesty, Morality, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

A Scandal that Calls for a New Reformation

Posted on August 24, 2018 by Father Joe

153508226949038595

“Christ himself, the model of priests, taught first by the example of his deeds and then by his words: Jesus began to do and then to teach. Likewise, a priest who neglects his own sanctification can never be the salt of the earth; what is corrupt and contaminated is utterly incapable of preserving from corruption; where sanctity is lacking, there corruption will inevitably find its way.”

– St. Pius X

We are taught as Catholics that the Church is holy because Christ is holy. This is what gives truth value to the second mark of the Church mentioned every time we recite the Creed at Sunday Mass. The Church is holy and it is by means of the teachings of faith and the sacraments that we can be made holy by grace. This is what we believe and yet has there ever been a time when it was so very hard to believe? The Church is also composed of sinners; indeed, we are all sinners needing a Savior. But when it comes to our priests and bishops, we like to imagine that they have a direct line to heaven. They make little money, forsake a spouse and family and are at the immediate beck-and-call of their flocks. The lesson that Jesus gives his apostles with the Holy Thursday foot washing is that the greater they would become, the more they would have to humiliate themselves as the servants of all.

Catholicism insists that both bishops and priests should remain celibate— placing the love of the Mystical Body or the Church ahead of all other loves. At a time when most churches compromise on the moral teachings of Christ; the Catholic faith remains resolute about purity prior to marriage, about the permanence of marriage, about marriage as only a relationship between a man and a woman, about the nature of the marital act as open to the generation of children, and about the sanctity of human life. The loftier the moral message, the further the messenger might fall when he is exposed as duplicitous.

Our priests witness the marriages of couples in love, consecrating unions with the favor of God and of his Church. They baptize babies, transforming them from mere creatures of God into adopted sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. They absolve penitents from their sins, literally stealing the damned from the devil. At Mass they celebrate the sacrifice of Calvary so that we might offer ourselves with Jesus, the Lamb of God, as an acceptable oblation to the Father. They give us Holy Communion, rations from that promised shore to which we travel as spiritual pilgrims. Along with bishops, they offer confirmation, completing our baptisms so that we might be enriched by the gifts of the Spirit and made living temples of God. They anoint the sick, perpetuating the ministry of Jesus in bringing healing to the hurting among us. They bury the dead, preaching a message of hope that in Jesus love is stronger than death and victorious over the grave. The priest is at the center of everything Catholic. That is what makes the current scandal especially devastating. The faithful are rightly disappointed and upset. Our shepherds are facing a crisis in holiness.

Contagious Scandal & the Loss of Reputation

Any one priest signifies every priest. This collective appreciation has made the present crisis a damning one. When the laity look at their priests, they immediately wonder, “Could he be one of those priests?” While regarding only a few, these dark revelations of sin and crime are sufficient in damaging overall trust.

Men presumed as truthful revealed as duplicitous liars.

These are the same men appointed as preachers of the Gospel. The priest and pastor is the chief catechist of every parish and is entrusted with the faith formation of his people. What becomes of the message or the Good News when the messenger becomes a witness of bad or scandalous news? What becomes of his credibility when the mouthpiece of God not only stumbles in his witness but is unveiled as an agent of the devil’s anti-gospel? How can such a man speak to us about the truth when he has failed to put on the mind of Christ?

Men presumed as merciful exposed as sources for sin.

These are the men chosen to give flesh to the Divine Mercy in the ministry of the church. Who would want to go to confession to such rogues? Many might think that their sins pale in comparison to such reprobates. While the efficacy of the sacraments is assured; it is understandable that the faithful would feel stained or polluted by association with these men. Is it all just empty words and gestures? Compounding the problem, they sometimes substitute malice for mercy and draw others as accomplices into their lives of sin. How can such men draw us into the love of God when they do not have the heart of Christ?

Men presumed as healers caught as sadistic destroyers.

Jesus condemned the pharisees for placing unnecessary burdens upon good people. As an antidote he delivered the freedom and healing that belongs to the children of God. Priests were called to mend souls and to give hope, not to breach their victims from the family of God or to give them cause for despair. The miscreants in the news destroyed innocence and purposely misdirected the faith trajectory of people’s lives. They placed their own sexual gratification over sacred promises and the good of persons. How could they live with themselves, exchanging the joy of right relationship with God for a cruel transitory delight toward others? Even if there were a failure to love, did they not fear God?

Men presumed as pure are brought to light as defiled.

Priests are commissioned as eschatological signs of Christ’s kingdom. This is a basic premise behind the promise or vow of celibacy. Celibacy is not the same as chastity or virginity. Rather, it is a wondrous way of loving others. We are corporeal-spiritual composites, creatures of spirit and flesh. The purity of the body is supposed to immediately signify the virtuous nature of the soul, the existential resolution as one who loves the Lord so tremendously that it spills over in concern for the neighbor. As opposed to the pattern of the rich man going away sad because of his many possessions, it is the follower of Jesus who seeks to abandon earthly satisfaction so as to be rich in Christ. What happened to this singleness of purpose in these men? How is it that they could be satisfied with the carnal man when they were pledged to something greater, the one who lives in the Spirit?

Men presumed as holy are divulged as devils.

We are all called to be saints. That is our fundamental purpose in life. Christ as the new Adam comes into the world to restore an innocence that was lost by sin. The priest is charged as an instrument of the Lord to dispense the divine mysteries in making this objective possible. His ministrations allow us to enter in the saving paschal mystery. Here is where the sins of these men become a kind of blasphemy against all that is holy and good. Instead of realizing their role as sharers in Christ’s priesthood and extending his saving works, they look to the wimpish failure of the first Adam; indeed, worse than this, they play the role of the serpent. Do they not see how they have been thoroughly soiled as slaves to the devil? Have they stopped believing entirely?

We are told that a priest, even in mortal sin, can validly administer the sacraments. This is one of the great absurdities of faith and yet one necessary to insure the efficacy of the sacraments in the life of God’s people. Of course, while a bad priest might do some good, his bad character often sours the milk and corrupts or tears down what is built up. This dissimulation probably constitutes a special wound in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Our Lord is pained by the priest who is a cheat or hypocrite, even as he is supposed to be “another Christ” at the altar.

It remains a conundrum that a priest might take his people to the very gates of heaven but himself be unable to enter. While we might think that the graces of priesthood would make it easier for him to go to heaven; certain authorities have argued that it makes the prospect of hell more pressing and dangerous. Why? The more one is given, the more for which one will be held accountable. The priest knows better and cannot claim ignorance. Everything needed for salvation is immediately available. That makes any neglect inexcusable. Further, because he has been configured to Christ by his ordination, the devil targets him for every temptation and assault. At his altar, at his desk, in his car and in his bed he is always in the midst of a fierce battle with the prince demon of perdition. Priests who forget this will immediately stumble. The senses are especially targeted. The scandals of late all appeal to the flesh and sexuality. The sins committed are virtually unimaginable. Minds are clouded. Hearts are hardened. The devil will take any crack he can find to pierce the priest’s soul— smoking, drunkenness, gluttony, sloth, anger, jealousy, whatever. The devil may have failed in his temptation of Christ; but starting with his apostles and coming down through history to his priests and bishops of today, he has found men who sometimes falter and even become his property. Judas may not be the only bishop-priest in hell.

It is a terrible business when the weak link of faith is the shepherd. The weapons to hurt souls and to attack the Church then come from the very hands of the priest— hands that were consecrated for the chalice and the host. We as Catholics become our own worst enemies. It is at such times that we must remember that our faith is placed ultimately not in men but in God. We should also recall the saints, for theirs is the true legacy of the Church. Instead of running away, it becomes all the more imperative for God’s people to keep the faith and to demand fidelity and holiness of their priests. All sins might be forgiven, but the sins against innocence must not be forgotten. A reform of the Church will mean that some higher churchmen will have to step down, certain priests will have to be removed from ministry and others will have to embrace a heroic apostolate of penance and sanctity. This is not a time for window dressing but of a true moral reform, to deal both with a hostile secular modernity and a rigid clericalism that makes careerism and a fear of scandal into higher imperatives than protecting God’s flock from the robber and the wolf.

If we enter into the light (not afraid of what will be unmasked) and not in the darkness (where the roaches of sin hide), then we will truly walk with Christ. As opposed to the clamoring enemies of the Church who see the current scandal as the death knell for Catholicism, maybe it is an unavoidable summons to “grow up” and to become a more effective and genuine witness for Christ in the modern world? Divine providence is most unfathomable when God draws something of the good from the misdirected evil of men.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Aside, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Commandments, Devil, Hell, Homosexuality, Jesus, Magisterium, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Priests, Religion, Saints, Salvation, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Muslims & Religion in Schools

Posted on April 14, 2016 by Father Joe

WHOA! This School Allows School Prayer, But Only For…

People are upset that Muslims are given facilities to pray in schools. I am more upset that we as Christians have so easily surrendered this liberty and have allowed the component of religion to be stripped from our lived culture and from the teaching of social studies. Freedom “of” religion does not mean freedom “from” religion. Such a mentality impoverishes us all and represents a sanitized or censored diversity. Removing the factor of religion falsifies history, as with Columbus, leaving us with charges of genocide, forced slavery, and greed but saying next to nothing positive about his faith and missionary mandate to bring the saving faith of Christ to the New World.

Filed under: Apologetics, Catholic, Islam, Politics, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Jesus, Mary & the Apostles

Posted on October 15, 2015 by Father Joe

A discussion with Paul on some matters about which he has a dispute.

PAUL: What is the true meaning and definition of being an Apostle of Jesus?

FATHER JOE: There are varied definitions given but Catholicism would tend to restrict the term to the chief Disciples of Christ. The Church is apostolic in the succession of Holy Orders through the “laying on” of hands, in the perpetuation of Jesus’ ministry and in our constant teaching from the deposit of faith revealed to the early Church and passed down to us.

PAUL: Doesn’t it mean walking with and following the actual person you are trying to emulate?

FATHER JOE: Yes, but that is a generic dictionary definition of the word apostle, not a theological or doctrinal distinction.

PAUL: I think that we have been called disciples and based on the true meaning of apostle, no one on earth, at least present day earth, can be called an apostle.

FATHER JOE: The Catholic Church believes the authority of the Apostles is passed to the Bishops of the Church. Pope Francis is singular among the Bishops because he is viewed as the Successor of Saint Peter (and for that matter, Saint Paul).

PAUL: So if Jesus, as the Catholic Church says, interchangeably meditates/intercedes for us to the Father then why do we also need Mary to pray/intercede/meditate for us? In regard to Jesus this is biblically based as is the fact that the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father in groans that words cannot express. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in full nature also God.

FATHER JOE:

(I think by “meditates” you actually mean “mediates.”)

The problem with your statement is that it does not sufficiently express Catholic teaching. The Word became flesh and in his mortal life Jesus revealed to us the face of God, how to pray and how to live out our discipleship. He prayed in his humanity because it is an essential element to the incarnation and our humanity. However, after his Paschal Mystery (suffering, death and resurrection), Jesus the Lord ascended to his place at the right hand of the Father. He transforms and facilitates our approach to the Father. We do not ask Jesus to pray to God for us because he is God. We address our prayers to the Father in Jesus’ name.

Jesus is a divine Person, as is the Father and Holy Spirit. There are three eternal generations in the Blessed Trinity. Remember the classical definition from the councils of the Church: there are three divine Persons but one divine Nature in God. God is still one.

We can intercede and pray for each other. Indeed, Mary and the saints in heaven can do so for us still in earthly pilgrimage. God is still the direct object of all prayer, even intercessory. Asking others to pray for us does not displace God from his dais. We are all creatures, even the angels, although they are spiritual and not composites like ourselves. The saints of heaven share in our Lord’s risen life and continue to love us and to pray for us

The mediation of Christ is not interchangeable with sanctoral intercession. Christ is the Mediator, Lord, Redeemer and Savior. We approach him both individually and with a communal faith. The latter is very much the purpose for which he instituted the Church. We do not approach God alone. Just as God called to himself an Old Testament people— so too does he claim the Church as a new People of God. Church membership includes the faithful on earthly pilgrimage, the souls in purgation and the saints of heaven.

We offer our prayers to the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Christ is the bridge between heaven and earth. He is the Way and the Truth and the Life. If it were not for the Holy Spirit there could be no faith and no prayer. We could not say “Jesus is Lord” if it were not given us by the Holy Spirit.

PAUL: By the way, I find NO biblical reference to Mary being our spiritual mother. Thank you.

FATHER JOE: I have already written at great length about the Blessed Mother and would invite you to search the pages of my site. Mary is given to us as our Mother at the Cross through our emissary Saint John. A phrase I repeat again and again is that “the Mother of the Redeemer becomes the Mother of all the Redeemed.” Mary will always be the Mother of Jesus. Believers are members of the Mystical Body of Christ (which is extremely biblical). Mary is the Mother of Christ where ever he should be found. If we are grafted to Christ and have been transformed by grace into his likeness then she sees something of her Son alive in us. We imitate Christ’s filial relationship of love to Mary. We are made members of the royal household of God. Through faith and baptism we are made adopted sons and daughters of the Father. Thus, Christ the King becomes our elder brother in faith and Mary assumes her crown as the Queen Mother. Peace!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Catholic, Jesus, Mary, Saints | 1 Comment »

Synod of the Family: Revisionist Proposals, part 2

Posted on September 29, 2015 by Father Joe

men_1_sm

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna echoes a few points that will no doubt be discussed at the upcoming Synod on the Family. (No disrespect is intended to this brilliant man who was the secretary that helped assemble the universal catechism.)

A stable gay relationship is “an improvement” over temporary relationships.

This position reminds me of what my old professor taught at CUA many years ago. It was wrongly argued that Fr. Charles Curran supported the promiscuous lifestyle that was lived out by so many homosexuals. In fact, he only argued, (while still wrongly), that the Church should support homosexuals who lived out faithful monogamous relationships. The difficulties I saw were the twofold condemnations from both natural law and divine positive law. There is no Scriptural qualification that same-sex behavior is okay if not promiscuous. Today, no matter what label we might impose upon it, we have no authority to change reality or what actually constitutes marriage. How then is a stable relationship better? Is it better concealed? Does it inhibit the transfer of deadly viruses? Is there a value in how it mimics heterosexual bonds? Spiritually, I am concerned about the forgiveness of sins and saving souls. Given that homosexual acts constitute the matter of mortal sin, is one not damned with either one partner or dozens of partners? Jumping from one ledge to another on a mountainside might make an appropriate analogy. One might miss the ledge by five feet or one inch, but the resulting fall is the same. Where is the improvement?

Sharing a life, “they share their joys and sufferings, they help one another. They took an important step for their own good and the good of others, even though it certainly is an “irregular” situation in the Church’s eyes.

The irregularity is not simply in the eyes of the Church. This makes the situation sound like it can be corrected with the quick change of an ecclesial rule or guideline. The problem is too deep for such a shallow response.

A shared life might precipitate a degree of needed solidarity and intimacy, but is that enough? I remember a college reporting to alumni that they had a very loving and supportive community. However, this did not dispel fears that the school had lost its Catholic identity. The ancient pagans had instances of wonderful comradery and unity; however, this affiliation was not Christian. Are we not facing a similar situation here?

I have known homosexuals who struggled with their sexuality and were discrete about their disorientation. They regularly went to Confession and those with partners tried earnestly to make the walk of faith with their special friend. Sometimes they failed. But they respected the teachings of the Church and loved the Lord. I knew men and women who took care of their beloved friend even as he or she was dying from diseases like AIDs or cancer. They lamented militants spitting the host into the face of churchmen like the late Cardinal O’Connor in New York. They retreated with disgust from vulgar exhibitions in rallies and parades. They were faithful to love while knowing that there was something broken in their attractions and genital life. Many joined Fr. John Harvey’s COURAGE and sought to share love in celibate service to others and in prayer to God. I lament that we seem to pamper those who demand approbation while neglecting these heroic men and women.

While a negative verdict from the Church about homosexual acts remains, “the Church should not look in the bedroom first, but in the dining room! It must accompany people.”

The negative verdict arises from the sources of revelation. How should one surmount a consistent teaching from both the Old and New Testaments that later finds confirmation in two thousand years of Christian tradition? Until recently, homosexual acts were criminalized in many places. This assertion about accompanying people sounds nice, but are we all walking in the same direction? I would not want to go to hell with other sinners just to appease the niceties of toleration and good manners. Would the good Cardinal make the same argument if we were discussing polygamy and mistresses? What about those who promote promiscuity, prostitution and orgies? What about the practitioners of bestiality, pedophilia and pederasty? No, I suspect then he would want to put his foot down. I am left wondering. Could it be that some churchmen just do not believe that homosexuality is all that serious a sin? Our Lord’s house or mansion has many rooms; what we do matters in all the rooms of his house! No one should be excused from the need for contrition and repentance. Do we really want to throw away this vital component to heralding the Gospel and transformation in Christ?

Pastoral accompaniment “cannot transform an irregular situation into a regular one, but there do exist paths for healing, for learning.”

This leaves me befuddled. He says the irregular situation remains but there are “paths for healing, for learning.” What does this mean? How will making them comfortable with error bring them to the truth? Or is he addressing the Church? Is the Church supposed to learn that we were mistaken about a basic issue of human sexuality? Is it wrong to expect the homosexual or lesbian to embrace a non-genital way of loving? Are not our ears being bombarded by the same deviant sex advocates who are demanding acceptance and approval, not just toleration? When asked about the issue, Pope Francis responded, “Who am I to judge?” What he meant was that only God can judge the individual soul. However, as the Vicar of Christ, he can affirm (as he did recently) what is viewed as right and wrong by our Lord and his Church. As sinners, we all need to grow in the truth and to experience genuine forgiveness and healing.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Clarfication on Intercessory Prayer & Salvation

Posted on September 7, 2015 by Father Joe

Praying to Mary
Intercession of Mary & the Saints
How is Praying to a Saint NOT Like Praying to God?

BUIMIRA: Here is a crucial point which should be clearly understood. With respect to the older posts, if we have a good relation with Jesus, and pray ONLY to Christ, and not to any saint, angel, or even to Mary, then we can count ourselves still confidently saved! This is the point that you missed, or did not make it clear. You shouldn’t have missed it in your articles.

FATHER JOE: No, this is not Catholic teaching. While all prayer is directed to almighty God, we do invoke Mary, the angels and the saints to assist us and to intercede before God. This is reflective of a “corporate” relationship we have with each other and God. Certain Protestant sects wrongly privatize or overly personalize faith. We are called to both a personal and communal relationship with the Lord. As for being saved, Catholics do not subscribe to the Protestant understanding of Blessed Assurance which flows from a rigorist Lutheran view of justification by faith. Such relies upon a notion of juridical imputation while Catholicism insists upon being born again as a new creation. While there is life, we can abide in the sure and certain hope of our salvation. The problem is that genuine faith can sour. We pray that we will faithful endure until the race is over. This is different from the presumption which you seem to espouse.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Mary, Questions, Reflection, Saints, Salvation | 1 Comment »

Christianity versus the New Atheist, part 7

Posted on August 20, 2015 by Father Joe

A continuation from part #6.

MISS ATHEIST

I’m glad you agree that megalomaniacs are the same, religion or not. Which shows that your claims that atheism is somehow at fault for millions of deaths is simply not true. You make claims that megalomaniacs somehow find comfort in the vacuum of atheism. How does that work? Or is this just one more vague claim that you can’t support, using it to tar atheists unfairly? And I wonder, just how can puny humans “exploit and corrupt religion” when this god of yours supposedly kept people from doing that by killing those who would do such things. It is notable that your god mysteriously doesn’t do what it is claimed to have done in its myths.

FATHER JOE

All I was trying to say is that deaths at the altar of atheism or religion are both heinous. I would no more condemn all atheists or communists for atrocities under Stalin and Mao than I would blame the Pope and the Church for the many sins of those who claimed to be Christian. Did I say that megalomaniacs find comfort in the vacuum of atheism? Actually, I think the message of any religion or philosophy can be twisted or corrupted. Errors in thinking may have a greater proclivity for such manipulation but no ideology or belief system is immune. I am trying to recall, did I actually say that atheism is a vacuum? Yes, it is true that God is deleted from scenarios; however, it seems to me that something else is always deposited in his place— like nature itself or mankind. It is in this sense that it can become a form of faith, albeit without a supernatural deity.

I believe that God makes possible through grace the reform and transformation of believers. However, we must also be disposed to God’s intervention. There is no guarantee that every believer will become a saint and go to heaven. God will not force his friendship upon anyone. Catholic doctrine stipulates that in Christ all are redeemed. But this is different from the question of salvation. There is a universal call to salvation. This does not mean everyone is saved. While Christ has conquered sin and death; this does not mean that sin and death have been utterly undone. This latter expectation must wait until the final consummation of the world.

MISS ATHEIST

I can criticize humans as a group when they kill, and again I can point out that your religion advocates killing others. You might have an argument if the bible wasn’t always showing this god killing and insisting that its people kill. Atheism is nothing more than concluding that there is no god. There is no morality attached to it. Atheists vary greatly on what their morality is, it is not atheism that makes people want to kill others. I don’t and thus we have evidence that your claims that atheism does make someone somehow amoral are false. What is there about Marxism that says to commit genocide? Marx saw religion as a complex thing, that it could be bad but it also could be good, a solace to the working class. It was when Lenin came that atheism was added. And then Stalin was a lunatic and if you wish to go there, one can say that people also can corrupt and exploit atheism.

FATHER JOE OFFERS QUOTES:

Karl Marx

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

“Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.”

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.”

Vladimir Lenin

“Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism.”

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

“Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies.”

Josef Stalin

“I believe in one thing only, the power of human will.”

“The Pope? How many divisions has he got?”

FATHER JOE CONTINUES

My religion is the Catholic faith. Catholicism is not a book religion as treated by some of the Protestant denominations. Even before there was a New Testament and a complete Bible, the Catholic Church was preaching the Gospel, celebrating the Lord’s Supper and making converts. It was the Church and her bishops that determined the canon of the Bible. We believe that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church in the truth regarding faith and morals. Just because certain matters were tolerated in Scripture or because sinful men compromised their faith in history does not detract from the truth of the faith. It is what it is, even when men fail to live it out. Focusing not upon Scripture or past history, tell me who today or what group does the Catholic Church want killed? The Church is a living thing. Look at the here and now. My religion does not advocate killing others. Indeed, she is attacked for defending human life and dignity from murder in euthanasia and abortion. She admits wrong and asks for forgiveness in regard to past wrongs committed by Christians. The famous “mea culpas” of Saint John Paul II and now the present pope speak to this. She argues for peace in a world racing toward war. Now there are militant Moslems who argue for forced conversions and Jihad or Holy War. Pope Benedict XVI said in Turkey several years ago that this concept must be rejected. He was charged with attacking the Koran and over a million people around the world protested and made death cries against him. The Church would try to protect you as much as any of its own against such challenges to human freedom, conscience and life.

You contend that atheism is merely the claim that there is no deity. However, like religion, there is no generic brand. It is most often informed and promulgated in various defining ways. Technically some believers may be practical atheists; they live as if there is no God. Other atheists believe in the laws of nature and it is to this group that the Church actively dialogues and seeks collaboration for an ethical society. Then there are atheists who buy into the fads and fashions of a secular and somewhat hedonistic society, all with little or no real mental reflection. There are also atheists who literally raise man to the divine dais. Science can manipulate man and prolong his life. Ethics become merely the laws we agree upon through legislation or judicial activism, regardless of precedent or claims of a natural law and order. Communism was often connected to atheism in the popular mindset, but unrestrained Capitalism combined with a liberal secular humanism can make an equal claim upon atheism. I have not made a great study of the question but I can talk about those whom I have encountered. Traditionally there has been the atheist who approaches the issue with a clear head and in a logical manner. Often he is more an agnostic than a full-fledged atheist. He will politely debate the question. He will contradict you but not insist upon converting you. However, it seems that such a one is being replaced by a more aggressive or activist atheist. The discussion is not enough for him. He feels that religion rots society like blight. He dreams of a utopia that has cast aside religion and its restraints. Frequently this atheist is also a lobbyist for abortion or gay marriage or other matters opposed by Christian churches. Agnosticism is a sub-category of atheism. Such a person just does not know if there is a deity or not. He does not see how it changes things one way or the other. He may ask the question, is there a God? But he is doubtful of a definitive answer. How would we know? How could we communicate? His perspective frequently vacillates. Religion is viewed as the enemy.

Religious people are defined as stupid or gullible or wrong-headed. Their churches or temples or synagogues or mosques are attacked as bastions of ignorance. Religion is faulted for all the major crimes of past history. Religion and believers are denied influence upon society by rules that protect secular humanism by criminalizing religious influence as a violation of Church-State protocols. Religion is equated with the obsolete and backward moving. Such an advocate views himself as enlightened and as if he has a proprietary hold on rationality. He and his kind are increasingly aggressive and want to force their views down the throats of others. Their attitude toward believers is anger, mockery and dismay. “How can you believe? How can you be so thick and stupid? Look at all the suffering and death in the world! Do you really believe a good god would allow this, if he existed? Where is he hiding? Why is it that he does not show himself?”

Some atheists show no interest in religion or arguing about it. It is just not a matter on the table. I have known other atheists who see value in the Ten Commandments, at least those dealing with human interaction, and find wisdom in the words of peace from Christ. Jesus becomes an important sage or philosopher, but not Messiah, Savior or Lord. This is reckoned the only life we will ever know; and within this understanding they try to live a happy life and to be a good neighbor. These atheists may sometimes practice religious rituals or go to church. But it is not to worship an invisible God, but to sustain family and social harmony. Cultural Catholics might fit into this category, men and women who approach the altar only at Christmas and Easter. It speaks to a cultural identification and an attachment to various familiar rituals.

MISS ATHEIST

Per a Pew research report, there are 67 million Christians in China (as of 2010), quite a few for being “persecuted.” It does seem that the Christians whose church got bulldozed weren’t entirely blameless, if they did indeed take more land than they requested. That may or may not be true, and we both know that Christians aren’t always honest and upright citizens. Is it okay to take something that is not yours? You also complain that the communists somehow dismiss the values of the Gospel. Now what are those values, since Christians don’t agree about what they are at all? As I have pointed out, the gospels do say to kill those who aren’t Christians. That’s as much of the gospel as “do to others as you would have done to you,” an idea older by far than Christianity. Indeed, communism is what Jesus preached. The big C communists did screw that up, though from human failure rather than that the idea was bad.

FATHER JOE

So after all the misdirection you are a supporter of Communism? There are indeed millions of Christians in China. They have suffered their churches being destroyed and crosses torn down. The Roman Catholic Church is still illegal on the mainline and Catholics are forced into the so-called Patriotic Church. But I am sickened at this discussion as you would now side with the atheistic Communists against suffering people of faith. Communism ultimately says that nothing is yours. In one town local agreements for a church were nullified by the Communist party and the new facility was bull-dozed. I suppose you would cheer such a dark eventuality. Our Lord did not preach Communism. Communism makes the person the property of the state and yet we belong to God. Your true colors are now shown.

MISS ATHEIST

Hitler was indeed a Christian. He certainly didn’t seem to want to destroy the RCC when he was having his picture taken with the cardinals and didn’t bomb the Vatican or even bother it. What secular religion did Hitler want to start? I’m well read about Hitler and the Nazis and it seems that having “Gott Mitt Uns” on one’s belt buckle doesn’t seem very secular. Indeed, he was quite enamored of the idea that the Jews killed Christ, something that is quite biblical as is Paul’s insistence that the “Hebrews” are quite awful people. I’ve read “Mein Kampf,” a piece of crap but certainly it is Hitler’s manifesto.

FATHER JOE

Hitler spoke out of both sides of his mouth. His grandmother may have had him baptized but he was not much of a Christian. Like so many politicians, even Stalin, he used religion for political and pragmatic purposes. Catholic League President, William A. Donohue wrote in February 4, 1999: “Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church.” He spoke of Christianity as “the Jewish Christ-creed with its effeminate, pity-ethics.” This paganism has a greater kinship with a liberal secular modernity than it does with Catholicism. Hitler’s plans included the establishment of a state religion with himself as its head.

MISS ATHEIST

Hmmm, you claim that totalitarian movements are somehow on the increase with the rise of atheism. Where is the evidence supporting this? It seems that you are quite ignorant on what secular humanism is, when you try to lump it together with rampant commercialism and materialism. But that is not surprising at all.

FATHER JOE

I make no claim to personal infallibility. However, the rise of secular humanism has emerged hand-in-hand with a rampant commercialism; indeed, persons are frequently reduced to commodities. When the spiritual is denied, everything is limited to the material. I suspect that many tyrants found atheism appealing in that it released them from the restraints of a moral code that they rejected. Communism could make people pawns of the state and unrestrained Capitalism could categorize people as assets or liabilities for profit. You fall short in appreciating this because you care more about swinging mud than pondering serious questions of philosophical meaning.

MISS ATHIEST

Oh, and now we get the typical and false claim that atheists are only rebelling— anything to imagine that atheists don’t have plenty of reasons not to believe in any gods. I certainly have no problem in standing up against humans who want to claim that their imaginary friend disapproves of things that they personally hate, and does their best to use ignorance and fear to make people obey. As I have said, Christians want to claim that only their version is the truth, and without evidence. Humanity constantly gets better and goes beyond what was called the “truth” a thousand or a hundred years ago, and religion has to keep up, claiming that their holy books really did say what humans now believe, trying to retcon their hidebound ignorance into modern mores.

FATHER JOE

Well, YOU are rebelling. You would tear down structures of faith that go back into time immemorial. You rebel and resist religion and, by your own attestation, would make impotent the religious voice in our society. If what you said were true, there would be a commonality in values between the Church and a modern secular humanism. However, upon issue after issue, there is a conflict. Until now you seemed to acknowledge this disconnect. The Church is not fabricating teachings or altering the past to catch up with the secular present and future. The issue is that civilization is increasingly on a different moral trajectory from the Church. The Church’s teachings both reflect religious themes and a particular philosophical understanding about what constitutes humanity and its place in the created order. While elements of this might be shared with those outside the Church, the real fight is with those who have a wholly different assessment regarding human identity and the basic meanings associated with natural law and existence, itself.

Most of this dialogue has avoided the reasons for atheism. That is unfortunate because such would make for a more dynamic and reasonable discussion. But this is less about atheism than it is the attack upon religion and people of faith. You should acknowledge that believers in gods or in men are all vulnerable to human weakness, villainy and inordinate desires. Catholicism does not use fear to make our point. Rather, we employ a reasoned defense of truth. The Church has never settled with imperfect contrition. It is so much better to love God than simply to fear the fires of hell. Catholicism has embraced learning in all its forms: theology, philosophy, science, language, art, music, etc. We employ the entire human experience to make our point and to help seekers to acknowledge the divine spark. Atheists will sometimes say that believers have no evidence; but in truth what happens is that they redefine what constitutes evidence. That is a slippery way to refuse believers any ground for their argument. At the same time, the atheist has gaps in his own appreciation of reality. He must trust in the brains of smarter atheists because few men can unravel the twists and turns of quantum physics or decipher the math of string-theory.

The deposit of faith is set but there is no dishonesty in the development of doctrine. God respects where we are and how much we can understand. Hopefully our theological reflection draws us ever deeper into the divine mystery. The seeds planted in the Gospel are real… blossoming into profound teachings about the sanctity of human life, the dignity of persons, and the need to be good stewards of the gifts given us.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism | Leave a comment »