Bishops | Blogger Priest

Waiting on the HHS Mandate & the Church

Posted on July 12, 2013 by Father Joe

Statement of Archdiocese of Washington
in Response to the Finalization of the HHS Mandate

June 28, 2013 – After almost two years and over 400,000 public comments, the government today finalized the HHS mandate. We have begun to review the 110-page final rule to determine whether or not it addresses our longstanding concerns. Our review and analysis of the complex rule should help us answer important questions concerning who determines which institutions are religious and, therefore, exempt, who is forced to have this coverage, and who must provide it. The new regulations are being closely studied and a more comprehensive statement will follow at a later date.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan: “Although the Conference has not completed its analysis of the final rule, some basic elements of the final rule have already come into focus.” He said the U.S. Conference of Bishops “has not discovered any new change that eliminates the need to continue defending our rights in Congress and the courts.” He argues that the HH Mandate still threatens the Church’s ability “to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.”

A FEW PERSONAL COMMENTS

We are still waiting anxiously for the response of the U.S. Bishops to the latest accommodations in the HHS Mandate from the Obama administration. The deadline of August is rapidly coming upon us and what happens next could be devastating to our hospitals, schools and charity works. It troubles me that the Catholic Health Association acts unilaterally without regard to the decisions of the USCCB. The latest version of the mandate exemption is being studied by our shepherds and yet the CHA has already come out in support of the measure. This is not new given that they supported it even when the bishops did not a year ago. I am just a poor priest, but my reading of the mandate makes me think that this latest revision is merely another round of the shell game we suffered before. There is still nothing on the table for commercial operations that have a mission paralleling the Church’s. Individual Catholics and those having businesses must participate. There is the plight of notable Catholic organizations like EWTN and the Knights of Columbus. The administration staunchly insists that employees MUST have free birth control pills and coverage for abortifacients and sterilization. When it comes to the question as to who will pay, the government is creative but consistent: whoever pays, it will NEVER be the person who wants sex but not pregnancy. The administration will officially redefine the meaning of the marital act, bloodying the hands of all with the sacrifice of innocent children. Saying that we will not have “to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage” is a legal fiction.

Distinctions are being made that are somewhat hard to follow. First, there is FULL EXEMPTION from the contraceptive mandate. This is in regard to Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” Second, there is the NON-EXEMPTION in reference to non-profit faith-based groups not directly affiliated with the Church, such as certain hospitals, schools and charities. These groups are being offered an “accommodation.” Third, there is NON-EXEMPTION with no accommodation. This would include large apologetic efforts, television, radio stations, and even small operations like a privately own Catholic gift shop. This group would be treated as any secular operation and would have to fully comply with the mandate.

It is thrown into the faces of the bishops that most Catholic women have used or are using artificial contraception. In other words, the administration is saying that Catholic women are more in sync with President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius than with their bishops. How can the bishops then speak on their behalf? The bishops counter that even if all lay Catholics dissented, they would still be obliged to uphold Christian faith and morals. The Affordable Care Act will deliver contraceptive services, including those prescribed by a medical provider, “without charging cost sharing, like a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible.” Organizations like Planned Parenthood must view this as the ultimate anti-Christmas; instead of a special birth, they will celebrate the avoidance of birth with a fortune in free-bees. Of course, nothing is really free. Someone always pays. Already the agenda of the HHS on behalf of so-called reproductive or preventative services, as well as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered health issues, is costing the American tax-payer billions of dollars. The 2013 HHS budget is $80.1 billion!

The HHS has not budged an inch. It is dedicated to the promulgation of free contraceptive services without cost-sharing while posturing that concessions have been made to non-profit religious organizations. But saying it does not make entirely it so. Even if it were completely true and reserved to non-profits, it would demand that those who operate for-profit religious operations must forfeit their religious liberty and rights of conscience. That is a dangerous and despicable double or even triple-standard. Churches are fully exempt, other non-profit religious organizations have an accommodation and for-profit companies (even religious ones) have no protection at all. The Church should speak out for her rights and for those of others, both organizations and individuals. Concessions from tyrants when others suffer, as we have seen in Latin and Central America, can taint the witness of the Church and make us bedfellows with the oppressor.

In any case, reserving ourselves to religious non-profits, we are told that churches that object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds would “not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage for their employees or students.” This sounds good. Similarly, we are told that the definition of a religious employer no longer insists upon the following details: (1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) Primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and (3) Primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets. This seems to answer many of the concerns of Cardinal Dolan and Wuerl. But wait a minute, then are the contraceptive services still available and who pays? Is this administration really going to sit back and allow a large number of Church employees to go without contraceptive coverage? I suspect that soon after the mandate takes effect, select people who work for the Church in various capacities will come forward in a staged manner to demand the “same rights” that are given other Americans. The convoluted and unclear language will be exploited and the Church will be further painted as anti-woman and anti-choice.

When speaking about non-exempt non-profit religious organizations, we are told: “Under an accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, separate payments for contraceptive services are available for women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization.” Who makes these separate payments? Is it the insurance carrier itself? These self-certified groups must notify the health insurance issuer and these plans “must then provide separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. As explained in the final rules, issuers will find that providing such payments is cost-neutral.” Cost neutral, are they serious? If such were really the case then we could have all insurance carriers supply contraceptives with no business, government and employee co-pay. But it is not true. Insurance companies are already starting to complain. In any case, some religious non-profits are self-insured. This issue remains unsettled. What insurance carrier is going to come forward and just take upon itself the financial burden of contraceptives without other more traditional coverage and money from health plans? It makes absolutely no business sense!

Money from the religious employer and payments from the employees fund the various health insurance plans. It goes into a single pot. There is a string of probable culpability: money is passed from the Church employer (matched by the employee) to the insurance carrier to the supplier of the offensive services. I suspect that churchmen are arguing about the question of remote culpability. However, this still seems very immediate to me. Even if the funds come only from the employee’s matching contribution— that money originated with the salary/benefits of the employer. Does government expect insurance carriers to come forward and to offer such services without payment or contract selection from the non-profit religious organization? I doubt that will happen. Compliance is literally getting someone else to do the dirty work for us. Cardinal Dolan sees the problem when he states that the revision “seems intended to strengthen the claim that objectionable items will not ultimately be paid for by the employer’s premium dollars,” and yet it remains “unclear whether the proposal succeeds in identifying a source of funds that is genuinely separate from the objecting employer, and if so, whether it is workable to draw from that separate source.” If there is only one plan, then nothing has changed: the religious employer will be funding abortion inducing drugs and contraception. Groups that think this is acceptable are guilty of muddled thinking. Segregating the funds in the books is merely an accounting trick. The moral problem remains.

Self-insured operations will have a “third party administrator” to “provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement.” Okay, we are back to the days of “voodoo economics.” It is argued that no reimbursement is necessary because the decreased pregnancy and birthing expenses will offset the benefits from contraception. Contraceptives may be cheap and yet when that gal from Georgetown paraded her fake $300 plus dollars a month bill for contraception, the administration was cheerleading how expensive it was! They want it both ways and I doubt “for-profit” insurance companies are going to give away anything for free. The money will be moved around, but someone else is going to pay for it. It might be called “administrative fees” or some other euphemism, but it will still be money trading hands for immoral services. Back in 2012, a national survey of pharmacists found that most thought this idea was ridiculous and would not work. The government is going to take fees (a tax) from the insurance issuer which it will return to pay for the contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. They are going to pay them with their own money! Congratulations to the Obama administration, it has invented the perpetual motion machine! But wait a minute, it never worked before, why will it work now? Making payments to one insurance carrier and pretending that magical money will come down from another to pay for the objectionable coverage is ridiculous. It is utterly detached from reality.

Further, who pays the third party administrator who acquires outside coverage? Does that not make him or her part of the religious operation? Is this person not operating for the religious entity or in the Church’s name? The problem of self-insured entities is not cleanly resolved by the change in the mandate. If the insurance agent pays out, even if selected by a third party, is the religious employer still guilty of enabling immoral services?

While not necessarily under the direct supervision of a bishop or religious order, the non-exempt non-profit organizations are an integral element of the Church. The formal dedication of a “third party” administrator to handle the claims for contraception is still a bad solution. It is like someone hiring a hit man and saying, “Take care of the problem but spare me the details. If you are caught, I will deny even knowing you.” We would be hiring someone to sin on our behalf, to maintain clean consciences.

The Church cannot preach and teach one message from the pulpit and in our schools and then do the opposite on such an important matter. Such hypocrisy would bring down any such house of cards. I suspect that some in the government administration precisely want this to come about. They have tried one tactic and now here is another. Throughout there has been one common thread: the redefinition of the Church. The administration wants to redefine the Church as something akin to HHS itself. It wants to compromise our voice and moral witness, converting us to the cause of a secular humanistic modernity. Already, the administration is counting on the fact that most Catholics currently regard the Church as outdated and out-of-touch. This is a test after many years of moral and political passivity.

Speaking about the multiple standards of full exemption, an accommodation and no protection at all, Cardinal Dolan said that the bishops “are concerned as pastors with the freedom of the Church as a whole – not just for the full range of its institutional forms, but also for the faithful in their daily lives – to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.” We are still dealing with the very definition of what constitutes the Church. The Church is not merely a house of worship or our hospitals, schools and affiliated charities. Most of the Church consists of the laity. They are the main ones who seek to evangelize and live out their Christian discipleship in the world. The Pharisees in Christ’s time took for granted that they could satisfy the demands of the Law while the average believer because of the demands of the state and his need for bread could not. Bishops and priests would share the same posture if they preached something that they knew that the government would not allow our Catholic “business” men and women to live out. The laity are also part of the Church, and the largest part at that.

The administration will not allow employees to opt-out of the program. The CHA does not seem to understand this fact. Maybe they do not want to admit it? However, even if such were permitted, it bypasses an important objection, that such a “reproductive choice” is offensive in itself and we do not want it covered for any employee, the spouse or teenaged children. You can say that you “opt-out” but can change your mind at any time. There is one plan and it still includes the offensive services. This opens up several frightful possibilities. Even if the employee is a faithful Catholic, his or her family covered by the family plan remains eligible for the immoral services. With or without parental consent, the employee’s daughters could get free abortion pills or get sterilized under the new plan. I suspect schools will now be able to pass the condom costs, with the addition of birth control pills, to the insurance providers of parents or guardians.

Everything about this provision in the mandate speaks to our hedonistic culture of death. If we really cared about women and families, the emphasis would be upon prenatal care and helping parents with the rising costs of child delivery and health. But it is deemed cheaper to kill children in the womb. Ours is a world that worships the barren womb and medicates against the child as if the baby were a disease. The administration would have people mutilate themselves and take poison to murder the unborn. Instead of rewarding sacrifice and genuine responsibility, we enable selfishness and moral degeneracy.

There has been much talk about the rights and choices of women under the HHS Mandate. Less discussed is the fact that it covers men as well. Male contraceptives are not as readily available, given trust issues, but the word is that more are coming. Further, there is the issue of men having vasectomies. This whole topic just gets more complicated and serious with scrutiny.

The only really good solution would be for the Obama administration to scrap the provision for what they call “preventative” services. If people wanted they could shop around and get coverage in private plans; I suppose the government could subsidize these. Unfortunately, that would mean that tax dollars would continue to be used for offensive services. As soon as morality clauses in religious-based contracts were enforced with firings over revealed abortifacient use or involvement in condom campaigns, I am sure we would be back in the courts. While we do not and cannot police the lives of people who work for us; nevertheless, they parade their sins on Facebook. Returning to the matter at hand, real exemption means that the bishops and Church organizations should have no involvement whatsoever with insurance bookkeeping gimmicks or third party administrators. But the government has a decadent culture on its side and will not bend. Strangely, even some religious people who disagree with the Church on contraception also feel that this is an important religious liberty battle. I have heard the elderly complain that there is not enough money for their life-saving prescriptions; they wonder, how then can the government find money to give compromised women free birth control pills! They cannot believe it. Admittedly, it is quite bizarre. The administration does not even want co-pay with the delivered contraceptives and abortifacients, something one must still do for blood pressure and heart medicine. This illustrates the moral sickness and sex-on-the-brain attitude of the HHS and this administration.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 3 Comments »

The Marriage Crisis

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Father Joe

I regularly follow the wisdom on Msgr. Charlie Pope’s blog for the Archdiocese of Washington. Recently, he posted on the following question: “In the wake of the Supreme Court decisions of this week, are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?” A number of Catholic voices are arguing that we should disengage ourselves both with the word “marriage” and from allowing clergy to function as civil magistrates in witnessing them for the state. Certainly I am sympathetic with what they hope to accomplish. However, I am already on the record, from past discussions, as opposed to such a retreat. Both sides can play word-games. Towards the end, he poses a second question, “Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil ‘marriage’ licenses?” Again, I appreciate the underlying reasoning; we want to avoid guilt by association and giving apparent approbation. My fear is that any such move would be contrary to a well-ordered or structured society (which is a good in itself). It would also constitute a retreat that opponents in the public forum would exploit. It seems to me that our laity would bear the blunt of the suffering and challenge that would come from such a move.

I am not blind to the dire crisis we face. It is true that marriage as an institution has been largely redefined by our society. The movement on behalf of same-sex unions is a case in point; of course, if left unchecked it will not stop there. Next we will see the return of polygamy. Despite the many scandals faced by the Church, there are even depraved people pushing for pedophilia and pederasty. There is already a bizarre effort in Australia for a man to marry his pet goat, the degradation of bestiality. The U.S. bishops reminded us in their failed initiative that marriage is in trouble. While I am hesitant to criticize our holy shepherds; the fact is that marriage has been in trouble for some time now and we were largely silent. Contraception nullifies the consummation of the marital act. Millions of abortions seek to erase through murder the fruit of marital love. No-fault divorce allows for quick separations and remarriages. Prenuptial Agreements insert doubt against the vows and a lack of trust from the very beginning, thus making those marriages null-and–void. Couples fornicate and cohabitate, essentially saying that you do not have to be married to have sex. Well, when you separate sex and marriage, you also set the stage for infidelity and adultery. Once sex is disconnected from marriage it is very hard to reattach it with any kind of necessity. Our society is saturated by an erotic and pornographic media that destroys courtship and sexualizes relationships. This dilemma is so pervasive that the inner person has lost any sense of propriety or decency. Viagra gives the old stamina to neglect their coming judgment and condoms give the young license under the illusion of protection. Wedding dresses that once expressed modesty and femininity are increasing replaced with skimpy gowns akin to those on television dance contests. Ours is the generation where all rights, even the right to life, are supplanted by the emerging and absolute right to have sex with anyone regardless of promises and unions. The children are caught up in the middle of this whirlwind. This is so much so that we even dress our little girls like the prostitutes that walk the street.

Much Ado about a Word

Msgr. Pope makes the accurate observation that the Church and society-at-large mean very different things by the word, “marriage.” Of course, this is also the situation with many other terms as well. While language is fluid and hard to control; it can certainly be manipulated. Look at the word GAY. This expression for joy or happiness has become the source for giggling when used in old songs. It has now been exclusively usurped by the homosexual community. Another word in peril is RELATIONSHIP. When we hear teens or young adults use it these days, they generally mean a sexual friendship with a certain degree of exclusivity. The word that most troubles and saddens me today is LOVE. What precisely does it mean anymore? We do not want to cast it off and so the dictionary definition gets longer and longer. Look at how we use it. “I love my car. I love my dog. I love my job. I love my house. I love donuts. I love strippers. I love my wife. I love my children. I love God.” Then we have expressions like, “Let’s make love,” a euphemism for sex. We give it so many meanings that the word begins to mean nothing.

What does the word MARRIAGE mean? Is it just a civil contract to make having sex easier or more convenient? If that is all it is, it is no wonder that couples are cohabitating without it. Some states have argued for different types of marriage contracts, one more easily dissolved than the other. There was even an effort to impose marriage licenses with term limits. If after five years, if the spouses were unhappy, they could opt not to renew. The marriages would then automatically expire. The divorce epidemic, something which Protestant churches pamper by their failure to enforce Christ’s command in Matthew against divorce, has given us what is essentially serial or progressive polygamy, one spouse after another. Proponents of “open” marriages suggest that couples should still be able to have sex with others outside their bond. I know one instance where a man lives with both his wife and his mistress in the same house. The girls share him. Largely gone is the Catholic-Christian equation that marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman who are called to be faithful to each other until the death of one of the spouses. Marriages are rightly directed toward the good of the spouses and the generation of new human beings, children. Stripping marriage of its propagative element is to make marriage wholly something else. Even infertile couples must express their union in that act which by nature is directed to the generation of new human life. That is why something like condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil, even in marriage, yes, even among older infertile couples. Too many couples feign the marital act and live in relationships that are not true marriages. The large cases of annulments are cases in point. People can share their bodies like cats and dogs but they are ignorant of the true parameters of marital love and union. Although a natural right, they have made themselves ill-disposed to the sacrament. Required six-month waiting periods and marriage preparation are attempts to remedy the dark situation. However, couples frequently go through the motions and tell the moderators and clergy what they want to hear. I recall one priest praising a couple he was working with for doing all the right things before marriage. On the way out one evening, I overheard the prospective groom tell his girl, “What a jerk!” Later I found out from parishioners that they had been cohabitating the whole time and only went to the priest’s Masses once-in-a-while to fool him about their religiosity. They spent a fortune on the wedding and we never saw them again. I heard a few years later they divorced because “they grew apart.” When Catholics marry outside the Church, in the eyes of God they do not get married at all. However, Catholics who marry in the Church might also start their unions with deception. Planting lies today often leads to weeds tomorrow.

I will echo Msgr. Pope in giving the definition of MARRIAGE from the universal catechism:

[CCC 1601] The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

What are we to do when the definition given to marriage in no way parallel’s the understanding of the Church?

Msgr. Pope proposes that we stop using the word “marriage” and substitute instead, “holy matrimony.” He explains:

“The word ‘matrimony’ also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = ‘mother’ and ‘mony,’ a suffix indicating ‘action, state, or condition.’ Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has ‘marriage’ for its nomen.”

He readily admits that there are problems with trying to regulate language in such ways. If I recall correctly, I was among those unconvinced and “perturbed that we were handing over our vocabulary to the libertines.”

We can play word games but our opponents are not fools. They were not happy with the notion of “civil unions” and wanted “marriage.” Don’t be surprised that they will also be speaking of their bonds in terms of “holy matrimony.”

Marriage is a natural right. Opting to use another word is not going to change this fact. Homosexuals and lesbians can feign marriage and the state might recognize it; but, in truth such unions are a violation of the natural law. The debate or argument is best sustained by retention of the vocabulary. We must insist that same-sex marriage is a fiction. Surrendering the word would only grant them the false sense that they had succeeded in making their argument.

If we cannot even defend a word like “marriage,” then how can we defend all the ideas behind it? This conflict is not just about marriage; it is a fight over the hearts and minds of people. So-called same sex-marriage is just one weapon in the enemy’s arsenal. The goal of our critics is to redefine the Church out of existence. The government administration wants to become the sole arbiter of marriage; but more than this— it views Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, and Catholic hospitals as standing in its way. Threats to close would only make them nationalize these institutions and they would argue that such is a “necessity” for “the public good.” This is the goal of our antagonists. If American society is to be remade then the Church must either change to insignificance or be destroyed. This is the fight we face.

Ministers of the State or of the Church

My initial sentiments emerged as an aside to the courageous crusade of Bai Macfarlane against No-Fault Divorce. The question arose as to whether clergy compromised themselves by acting as witnesses for the state, signing the marriage licenses and returning them to the courts. Msgr. Pope continues to sign them, he says, out of holy obedience to the Archbishop. Speaking for myself, I think we would forfeit too much by surrendering this privilege to the state. I suspect that problems might escalate instead of get better. Further, if the Church should opt out, would not our couples still have to get their civil licenses before Church weddings? He seems to think not, arguing that they should “in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.” I recall arguing with a hippie years ago who regarded the marriage license as just a piece of paper. In response, I cited that it came along with the Church sacrament and that it also respected the state’s right to regulate marriages as an integral building block to society. The state is taking a wrong turn with these same sex unions but we should still take advantage of our rights as citizens. That piece of paper says that as a member of society, I still have a voice and that marriage is an institution that must be acknowledged, regardless as to whether others are given such acknowledgment wrongly (in the past because of divorce and today also because of same-sex unions). Opting out will undermine a structured society, its institutions, and the protections and rights we take for granted.

I have immigrants in my parish from Asia and Africa. Their home nations do not give the privilege that our clergy enjoy in being able to witness marriages. Some of them have only known tribal weddings. Others have licenses from a judge or notary public. While they should have immediately had their marriages solemnized by a priest, they put the process off. Children were conceived. Time went by, maybe years, and now they all need Church convalidations. Would we reduce all marriages in the Church to convalidations?

If we attempt to marry people in Church who are not legally married; we will be facing all sorts of headaches. We would be opening the door to rampant bigamy where people would be civilly married to one person and married in the Church to another— without the recourse to the legal fiction of divorce. At present the state recognizes all Church unions even though the Church does not acknowledge every civil union. The last thing we should want is to segregate the Church into her own private ghetto where there are “us” and “them.” We have every right to a place in the public forum and should fight for it. Our married couples have every right to the protections insured by law (tax incentives, inheriting property, healthcare and insurance, custodial issues with offspring, hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse, and sharing a name). Marrying couples without civil licenses would once have opened our couples to prosecution for cohabitation. Even if this is a bygone concern, there is still the prospect of scandal. Some will view “married in the Church” but “not in the state” as NOT being married at all. The children from such unions could be labeled as “bastards” by our critics.

The Church has a responsibility to be fully integrated into civil society as a constitutive part. There will be conflicts but accommodations will have to be made that will not compromise our message and mission. Maybe there is a need for different types of licenses from the state for religious weddings, distinguishing them from civil ones? Indeed, there are different theologies between the churches. Some view the clergy person as the one who performs the marriage. Catholics view the spouses as the ministers of the sacrament to which the priest witnesses. Episcopalians and others will probably even allow and celebrate same-sex unions. We may become a minority voice in this society but we should not allow that voice to be silenced. Taking our toys and going home angry will not fix the situation. The retreat of the Church would be precisely what our enemies want. I fear that it would further erode the foundations of our civilization. Caesar’s empire might be pagan, but the Christian and the Church still have obligations to maintain a society that would protect our rights and freedoms.

I would maintain the status-quo with priests witnessing marriages for the state. However, there may come a day when that is taken away from us. We can cope with that when it comes. Civil disobedience might then take many forms, some of which could be extremely bizarre. One priest suggested that all our religious houses claim same-sex unions so as to get the marriage benefits and healthcare. I know one case already where a married couple got divorced but still live together so as to have better retirement benefits. I suspect that laws will be passed to force couples and the Church to behave. How far do we want to press it? Speaking for myself, I really hate retreating.

The Larger Challenge

It is my hope that we will have courageous shepherds and a supportive flock. I foresee priests facing fines and jail time for hate-speech in regard to teaching and preaching against homosexuality. After all, the Church’s language about marriage in the recent Supreme Court case was appraised as bigotry. Hum, we might have to take priests entirely out of the marriage scenario if all our clergy are locked up. Already, while the Church is currently protected, and we cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, organizations like the Knights of Columbus are not safeguarded. At this writing the free-standing Knights of Columbus halls in Maryland have been notified that due to their state charters they must rent for the wedding receptions of homosexuals and lesbians. The pressure is already on.

Our public schools are teaching that any reservation about homosexuality is discrimination. What will our children then think of their churches? Must we extract all our children from the public schools? Who will pay to place them into Catholic institutions? Homeschooling is an option for some but not for all. Where are we going from here? If the government and the media are more successful than the Church in forming consciences and teaching values; then what avenues are left? The issue is far more complex than any nomenclature of marriage or whether priests are authorized as civil magistrates. The question is how does the Church function and survive in a non-Christian society?

Catholics did not unanimously support the U.S. bishops in the Marriage Matters campaign. Indeed, large numbers were vocal in opposition. We hesitate to name names and are always fearful of our tax-exemption status. But if we are going to be shunned in a matter similar to racists over the issue of homosexual acceptance; then we will no doubt forfeit such benefits in the days ahead. I know I sound pessimistic and cynical. But that is what I see coming. The Church waited too long to find her teeth. She is an old dog grown weak from inactivity and abandoned by her pups. There are wolves coming. They want the Church out of the way. Look at the various initiatives of the current administration. Starting with appointments in religious churches and schools, then forcing churches to violate their basic principles and next pressing upon us what was once an unthinkable depravity— all these are attempts to redefine the Church out of existence. The president’s view of religion is seen through the prism of secular humanism. Anything else is judged as extraneous and must go.

There are some who are pawns to those who hate the Church. Others actually think that they are catalysts for positive change in the Church and society. Look at all the Catholic politicians who oppose the U.S. bishops and who dissent on Church teaching. The chief advocates in Maryland and in Washington are baptized Catholics. Like Msgr. Pope, I have my opinions; and like him, in obedience we both defer to the Archbishop and the national shepherds of our Church. We share our ideas, pray for courage and know that God will not abandon his children.

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Atheism, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Contraception, Divorce, Family, Fortnight for Freedom, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sacraments, Schools, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Another Anti-Catholic Pays a Visit

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Father Joe

The following is my response to Steve Thompson who posted comments against the Priesthood, the Church, and Mary.

STEVE: Joe, you are NOT my father.

FATHER JOE: I certainly hope not because I do not know your mother.

STEVE: Jesus said to “…call no man father except Father who is in heaven.”

FATHER JOE: Yes, and he also said to call no man your teacher, but we have many teachers. We also have biological fathers. Saint Paul even spoke about himself as a spiritual father. Priests are also spiritual fathers. Jesus uses Hebraic hyperbole so as to make an emphatic statement or emphasis. It is the Jewish way of adding an exclamation point, by making an outrageous claim. Our fatherhood should amplify and make clear the reality of God as our Father. God cares about us. Similarly, genuine teachers teach in conformity to the truths revealed by God. Anything else is forbidden.

STEVE: The Catholic church is full of pedophile priests.

FATHER JOE: Actually, it is not. There were as many sick men as in the general population and we have made a real effort to remove them from ministry and to enact policies to protect our children. But let us be honest, you are not so concerned about the issues and answers as you are eager to pounce on the Catholic Church (large ‘C’).

STEVE: Jesus Christ is our high priest, and the pastoral epistles (Timothy I & II, Titus) outline the church offices, whereby you will not find monks, nuns, cardinals and popes.

FATHER JOE: Cardinals are the electors for Popes. The Church at one time selected the Bishop of Rome in other ways. Most Cardinals are bishops or at least priests. Your mistake is a failure to discern that the titles or labels attached to ministries and sacraments have changed over time. Everything that the Church is today is planted by Christ and grew up during the apostolic period. Ministers are called pastors, a name originally associated with shepherds. Our bishops to this very day carry the shepherd’s staff or crozier as a sign of their office. Men are ordained, elders (presbyters) are appointed and the qualifications for bishops (episcopoi) are detailed. Deacons are selected to care for the Greek widows and they preach the Good News. St. John would become a part of an ascetic community. The desert fathers would trace their piety to him. Early Christian monastic communities would model themselves on the Jewish communities as at Qumran. Like St. Paul, many would embrace a celibate way of love and life. While the title was not always used, all the Popes are successors of St. Peter. The charge given him by Christ is also given to them. “You are Rock! Feed my sheep! I give to you the keys of the kingdom.”

STEVE: Christians do not need human priests, popes, nor the “mother of God,” since God has no mother.

FATHER JOE:

The unique mediation of Christ as our great High Priest does not preclude the extension of Christ’s ministry through his priests. Indeed, the Bible makes this point. Our Lord told his apostles to perpetuate the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper) in remembrance of him. He gave Peter universal jurisdiction over the Church. He gave his priests the awesome power to forgive sins. Read 2 Corinthians 5:14-21: “Brothers and sisters: The love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died. He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. Consequently, from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer. So whoever is in Christ is A NEW CREATION: the old things have passed away; behold new things have come. And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ AND GIVEN US THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them AND ENTRUSTING TO US THE MESSAGE OF RECONCILIATION. SO WE ARE AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST, AS IF GOD WERE APPEALING THROUGH US. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

As for the title MOTHER OF GOD given to Mary, it is the language or communication through idioms. What are you, a heretical Nestorian? Mary’s title defends the divine identity of her Son. Mary is a blessed creature preserved from sin and chosen by God to be the vehicle through which the Messiah and Lord would enter our world. Your rebuke against her is most foul and unbefitting a Christian. But are you a Christian? Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity made incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe that he is the eternal Word made man? Those who argued that Mary was only the mother of the man were interpreted as denying that Jesus was a divine Person.

STEVE: Catholic Jesuits endorsed the Inquisitions, and their banana republic nations in South America reflect what this religion is really all about.

FATHER JOE: Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans were involved with numerous Church courts. Many of these functioned as civil courts do today, seeking to preserve public order. Various nations misused particular inquisitional authority, but in some kingdoms the efforts were very mild. Protestant and Catholic nations both sometimes misused religion. The numbers of people wronged are often exaggerated, some pushing from a few thousand to other critics ridiculously suggesting millions (which would have emptied Europe of any and all population). People also suffered in the ancient prisons from poor health conditions. You wrong the Jesuits who died to bring the faith back to England. Priests have also suffered torture and execution in Mexico, Central, Latin and South America from the very tyrants with whom you associate them.

STEVE: Catholics/Popery signed a Concordat with Adolf Hitler during World War II.

FATHER JOE:

The Concordat was signed in 1933, a number of years before World War II. Hitler’s Germany would break such agreements just as it would with France, Russia and other nations. The Concordat was to protect the status and work of the Church in a totalitarian fascist state. The Church was very much at odds with Hitler and was seeking breathing room. The Church wanted to insure the spiritual care of 20 million German Catholics. It was not approval for a Socialist state that was philosophically antithetical to Catholic faith and values. Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge in 1937. It was drafted by Pope Pius XII and read in all the Catholic churches. It criticized Hitler, National Socialism, and the persecution underway. Catholics were warned that Nazism was incompatible with Catholic Christianity.

Your insinuations or perjury to the contrary is a gross violation of the commandment against false witness. This was one of the strongest condemnations ever offered by the Vatican!

STEVE: Furthermore, your Maryolatry is based on the pagan “Queen of Heaven” cult going back to Nimrod/Semiramis, Venus, Diana, Isis and Aphrodite. Get yourself a copy of the Two Babylons by Alexsander Hislop and you will learn what I already know about your religion.

FATHER JOE: I have a first edition hardback copy on my anti-Catholic bigotry shelf. The book Two Babylons by Alexsander Hislop is a joke and represents the worst of twisted logic and poor scholarship. Only anti-Catholic bigots take it seriously because it fuels their hatred against Catholicism. He equates similarities with an absent historical progression. It is up there with spurious works like Chariots of the Gods by Erich von Däniken, although his fancy are ancient alien astronauts.

STEVE: The Catholic Church is all about the Babylonian religion, priestcraft and sacraments (Your so called 7 saving sacraments could not save anyone from anything).

FATHER JOE: The Catholic Church is the most authentic and original form of Christianity. The apostles were the first bishop-priests. The sacraments or as they were once called, the divine mysteries, are sacred signs instituted by Christ to give grace. They enter us into the Paschal Mystery of Christ. It is because of this that they have saving value. The priests of the Church participate in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ. Jesus offers the Eucharist. Jesus forgives sins. There is no contradiction.

STEVE: Anyone can have access to Jesus Christ directly without your pagan plumbing, including but not limited to Maryolatry, Popery and your priestcraft.

FATHER JOE:

The Church encourages both a personal and a corporate faith in Jesus Christ. You would shortchange others just as you do to yourself. Separated from the Church, believers are liable to lose their way just as you have. We do not come to God alone. You are deceiving yourself if you think otherwise. Without the Church, you would have neither a Bible nor someone to translate and pass it on. The Holy Spirit watches over the Pope and bishops to insure the faithful transmission of the deposit of faith. As for Mary, precious biblical prophecy is preserved in Catholicism that you out-rightly reject:

Prayers and Intercession of Mary

Luke 2: 33-35: “The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) SO THAT THE THOUGHTS OF MANY HEARTS MAY BE REVEALED.’”

Honoring Mary

Luke 1: 46-49: “And Mary said: ‘My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; BEHOLD, FROM NOW ON WILL ALL AGES CALL ME BLESSED. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. ’”

STEVE: Peter was married and there was no “pope” for 300 years.

FATHER JOE: The Church began with many married ministers but later decided that celibate love was more desirable for our Christian shepherds. So what? But there were indeed Bishops of Rome or Popes, extending from Christ to the present day. Clement of Rome wrote an epistle or papal letter to the Corinthians in 96 AD! The Popes and the Church was proclaiming the Gospel even though the New Testament had not been completely written and the biblical canon had yet to be formed.

STEVE: Your religion is mostly man made.

FATHER JOE: Sorry, but such is the charge that convicts you. You have made yourself into the great authority of the divine and arbiter of truth. You oppose the Pope by making yourself a false Pope. You strip Christianity of its richness and truths. Yours is a religion of hate and bigotry. You define your faith by what you oppose and offer little of lasting value. You poison the mix.

STEVE: You killed people during the Middle Ages for owning a Bible or part of one, and read the services in Latin so no one could understand them.

FATHER JOE:

Me? Actually I was not born until the last century.

Your charges do not stick against the Church, either. Disagreements I can understand, but I am always challenged to keep my cool in the face of bigoted ignorance. Before the printing press, bibles took years to make and churches preserved them so that all might benefit. Many people could not even read which is why bible stories were told with images in stained-glass windows (something else I suspect you hate). Latin was originally used as the language of the people. Church language transitioned from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek to Latin. Modern English did not even exist as a language. The languages of man changed over time and the Romance languages grew from Latin: Italian, French and Spanish. Latin was preserved as the language of the Church reflecting the changeless quality of faith. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Today the liturgy is translated into the vernacular.

STEVE: I was blessed by God to have never been born into this religious institution.

FATHER JOE:

People are not born into the Church as through nature; rather, they are reborn into the Church through faith and baptism. Some as children and others as adults are initiated. Parents and sponsors witness for a child and we trust that the same baptismal promises will be personally professed in Confirmation. We become temples of the Holy Spirit, members of a priestly people and a holy nation. We are fashioned by grace into the likeness of Christ. We become adopted sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. Jesus who is our King becomes our elder brother and Mary is the Queen Mother. The saints are our spiritual brothers and sisters. We become members of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church. We become inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.

We are the ones truly blessed and we would pray that you might know such blessing!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Baptism, Bible, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Commandments, Faith, Forgiveness, Incarnation, Jesus, Mary, Pope, Religion, Sacraments | 3 Comments »

Another Upset Woman About Married Priests, WHY?

Posted on March 24, 2013 by Father Joe

CATHY: It is impossible to make such assumption that having a wife and children would be distraction to priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope when they were never allowed to have a family in the first place and many have fooled around anyway. To make people choose against a holy sacrament of marriage is to break the first commandment in the bible which is to be fruitful and multiply. You would take away some of the supposed scandal from the church if you would allow for men and women (nuns) to serve and be married. How can ministers of the word even begin to identify with parishoners if they have not lived through some of their circumstances especially since ministry begins in the home. Sex is not vile if done within marriage. It is a God sanctioned act. This not being married is a man sanctioned decree. Every prophet and most of the apostles including St. Peter were married. Their trials were due to the times they were living in. Now, unless you are living in pagan or atheist parts of the world, no one is trying to burn or stone you for being Catholic.

FATHER JOE:

You assert several serious falsehoods:

First, the Church in the West once had a married clergy and determined that celibate clergy best served the Lord and the Church. In other words, we have “been there and done that.”

Second, most Catholic ministers are faithful to their promises and do not “fool around” as you put it. You malign me and many good priests. How dare you do this?

Third, the command in Genesis is given to the species, not to every individual. Otherwise, you would have to force people to get married and mandate that all fertile females get pregnant. Such would be absolutely silly. Our Lord did not get married and neither did St. Paul. Deacons represent both married and unmarried clergy in the Catholic Church. Most priests and all bishops are celibate. We did not “choose against marriage” but rather “chose a spiritual marriage to Christ’s Church.” You minimize the sacrifice and the value of such single-hearted love. You should be ashamed of yourself for that.

Fourth, please, do not be silly; sick and unfaithful people are still sick and unfaithful if they are married. A majority of men who left priesthood for marriage subsequently divorced. Protestant churches may not have their dirty laundry paraded on the news, but they have their own scandals with married clergy. A Methodist minister and friend of mine had a large and vibrant church in Washington, DC. He had an affair with a lady in the choir and got himself fired and defrocked. A married clergy would only amplify the possibility of scandal, albeit with divorce, abuse, incest, etc. There is nothing unnatural or wrong with celibacy. The answer to our problems is not a married priesthood. Allowing nuns to marry violates the very nature of their calling.

Fifth, the family may be the little Church but there is no requirement that every man be an ordained priest. Priests deal with many families. There is marriage preparation, counseling, and confession. We see and hear it all. We know the plight of our people. Our celibacy makes us available to them. We might not have our own wives and families, but we belong to our many parish families. Priests are not fools.

Sixth, a celibate priesthood is no condemnation of human sexuality and marriage. Do you know nothing about Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body? The marital act must remain within marriage as the consummation and renewal of the marital covenant. But there is no requirement that we collect as many sacraments as possible. Most men will never be priests. Most Western priests will never be married. I will never have a child. But few men can stand at the altar and make Christ present with the words of consecration. The Priesthood with Mass and Confession are enough for me.

Seventh, celibacy is a discipline of the Church. But our Lord gave such authority to his Church and it is not for you or me to impugn or spurn it. The Church has the mind of Christ in this matter.

Eighth, the Jewish and Christian view of marriage was not the same. Jews tended to see God’s blessings in progeny, wealth and land. Christians are urged to embrace a poverty of spirit. It is in this light that St. Paul recommends celibacy as the better way. You would be hard-pressed to show a married background for all the prophets. St. Paul and certain others were not married. There is evidence that the early Church had a preference for perfect continence on the part of married men who became priests. Strict celibacy would relieve the tension caused by such a situation.

Nine, while I not entirely sure how this fits into the debate about priesthood and marriage, we are facing terrible trials today, too. I have parishioners with family members suffering violence and death in Asia and Africa. Churches are being bombed and Christians are being martyred. The news here at home is filled with daily assaults upon the Church and our religious liberty. Indeed, the government is seeking to shut us down or compromise our moral message. Sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about. Not having a wife and family might free a priest from fears of retaliation against them or intimidation through them. Men often feel that they must make compromises to secure their families. Are you married Cathy? Does your husband agree with you about mandating married priests?

Cathy, you really know very little about men as priests or what matters to us. We have men and women friends but we save our intimacy for God. Marriage is a wonderful thing, but so is celibate love. Do you find that hard to believe? We do not need to be married. We do not want to be married. We are happy. Why is it that people like yourself want to mess with our lives? If a man is called to holy orders then God will give him the graces for this state of life.

Peace!

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Marriage, Priests | 6 Comments »

Is the New HHS Compromise a Real Compromise?

Posted on February 5, 2013 by Father Joe

Here is the HHS Compromise, be attentive because it gets complicated: “With respect to self-insured group health plans, the eligible organization would notify the third party administrator, which in turn would automatically work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants. The costs of both the health insurance issuer and third party administrator would be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees that insurers pay.”

Since the Archdiocese is self-insured, this would in effect mean that some of our employees would have to be insured by an outside organization, either in whole or in part. Look at all the actors in this play: (1) the Church; (2) the third party administrator; (3) an outside health insurance issuer; (4) the federal government; (5) the supplier of services; and (6) the insured person. The user fees are essentially a tax to insure that contraceptives are free and to pay the third party administrator. What happens to the viability of the self-insurance program if people opt out for the third party insurer?

In any case, I still think people are going to pay more for heart and blood-pressure medicine to make up the cost for free contraceptives. What insurance company will cover just contraception, sterilization and abortifacients without funds to shift from other medical coverage? I doubt federal fees with be sufficient. It will be exploited. Is the Church still morally culpable if we collaborate with other agents in such a scheme? Are we culpable for money given to the government to pay the insurance companies to supply people with contraceptive services?

Given the intransigence of the administration with insisting that health care include free contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization; I cannot say that I trust the latest offer of exemption to the Church and associated religious entities. It seems to me that religious liberty is still very much threatened. Remember, this is the same administration which sought jurisdiction over ministerial assignments; no doubt supposing that if they lost one ridiculous or outrageous battle, it would make churchmen more passive about what was viewed as a lesser campaign. I think they were genuinely surprised by men like Cardinal Dolan. Suddenly Catholic bishops had teeth and could bite back.

I suspect this newest offer is to convince the bishops of a need to see the dentist. The administration still insists that the agenda of Planned Parenthood will become the official policy of government. No matter how you spin it, that means a confrontation with the Church and the Gospel of Life.

I was amazed that some critics and churchmen quickly rejoiced and sang Hallelujah when the revised policy was announced. We must not return to a posture of passivity and ineffective opposition to Big Brother and modernity. More level-headed religious leaders argue that we need to look at this offer closely. It may be a trick. It seems to me, upon closer examination, that there is no miracle break-through or adequate accommodation. The shell-game continues.

The question proposed is this: can such a policy be mandated against Church institutions with religious and moral reservations? The response of the administration seems to be that some institutions have more of a claim upon religious liberty than others. If the previous offer only preserved such liberty within the walls of the churches, this new policy will only add the porch or parking lot. Churches, individually or corporately, are protected, as are religious orders, but the rest is still up for grabs. Again, this administration has a very narrow notion of what constitutes “church.” Ministries in the area of community service are understood entirely within the matrix of secular humanism. President Obama’s religious vision is wholly a horizontal one (earth-bound) with little or nothing of the vertical or transcendent. In other words, God made us— great; but WE make the rules.”

We still have a fight on our hands because of the indiscriminate outreach of our religious charities, hospitals and schools. This element of the policy has not really changed. Okay, even if self-insured, we would not be required to pay “directly” for the contraceptive coverage; however, we still have to find other insurers to dirty their hands for us. The cooperation with evil becomes more remote but they will still be our agents.

Throughout it has saddened me that we have stressed the religious liberty of the Church as an institution but not the same rights of individual believers and citizens. There is no exemption for them and their businesses. It is bad enough that pro-life groups, EWTN, the Knights of Columbus and others might be forced to comply; however, what about the good Catholic entrepreneur who bakes donuts or fixes cars or cuts the grass. There are no exemptions at all for them. I know, some will say that they could fight and pay out hard-earned money to litigate for themselves. But this is America, our rights are supposed to be guaranteed, not entitlements for which we have to fight and beg.

I bet if it had not been for the courts, we would not have seen even these concessions. No doubt the administration wants to promote a particular public perception: a liberal government wanting to dialogue about national healthcare and a backward-thinking Church wanting to deprive couples of pills and condoms. President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius know full well that many if not most American Catholics are out of sync with Church leadership and moral teachings. As in Maryland with the proposition for same-sex marriages, they hope to exploit this advantage and show that they are the true magisterium, not the ecclesial shepherds largely abandoned by their flocks. As much as the USCCB has sought to frame this debate under the banner of religious liberty and the First Amendment, the administration has been highly effective in convincing many people that it is about reproductive choices and health. God help us!

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Politics, Sexuality, Social Justice | 7 Comments »

Religious Liberty, Traditionalists & Obedience

Posted on August 28, 2012 by Father Joe

The SSPX has made no secret of its opposition to the teachings about religious liberty both espoused at Vatican II and in the recent USCCB campaign against government intrusion.

We have faced many challenges to our religious liberty. At one time Catholics were forbidden entry into certain colleges like William and Mary. Catholic churches were burned and our worship was curtailed. Later there was the issue of public education and the reading of Protestant bibles. Catholic schools emerged to insure the faith of generations of children.

In more recent times there has been the issue of prayer in schools, the celebration of religious holidays and public symbols, and the status of the Sabbath or Sunday blue laws. The emphasis has shifted from a preference given to the Protestant faith over the Catholic, to an atheistic secular humanism that is hostile to all faith. Today, there is a concerted effort to force the Church to compromise on matters like homosexuality, artificial contraception, and abortion. Will the Church face charges of hate-speech for opposing same-sex unions and homosexual acts? Will the Church be forced to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization in healthcare plans? How far will this fight go and how strong and courageous will we find Catholic churchmen. And will the Catholic people stand with their shepherds or with an anti-Catholic modernity? We would expect that traditionalists would be of one mind with conservatives on such matters; but such is not always the case.

The Church would not argue that religious liberty is absolute or that it “necessarily” applies to all creeds equally. However, the principle of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are critical to the Church’s understanding of human dignity. The more a religion reflects the objective order and spiritual truth, the more that faith must remain free from coercion. Mormons once taught polygamy and were rightfully corrected by the federal government. Satanism is restricted on military bases because occult services in the nude conflict with the military code of conduct. Sometimes peculiar things are tolerated in other religions so that the Church herself might benefit from non-interference, matters like the pacifism of Quakers and rigid alcoholic temperance. Then there are acts that cause quite a bit of debate, matters like snake-handling, the prohibition of blood transfusions (Jehovah Witnesses) and interdictions toward inter-racial dating. However, there are also clear limits as with ritual euthanasia, human sacrifice, bondage or trafficking, and the abuse of children.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. (Dignitatis Humanae #7)

Given the persecution of the Church in England, the separation of the Church and state was interpreted as a way to protect our interests. While an ideal state is one where the Church and state are in harmony, history has proven that such unity is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. There was also the unpleasant side-effect that with the Reformation, the creed of the land followed the local prince. While such was legally tolerated in Europe to prevent bloodshed, this arrangement was very unfair to Catholics who felt abandoned by Rome and a Catholic Europe. Religious liberty in the United States permitted the Church to expand at a rate that surprised even the Holy See. Marylanders rejoiced to be liberated from the penal laws. Our Catholic school system grew to be second to none. It must be added that the separation of Church and state never meant a disavowal of traditional religious values or culture. Such is the extreme that we see today from organizations like the ACLU and the liberal People for the American Way. The American state was viewed by many of our founders as a Christian one, not atheistic as some contend today.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (Dignitatis Humanae #2)

If everyone were Catholic, we might presume that the public values and laws would reflect this fact. But states that are largely Catholic do not always remain sympathetic to the Church. Mexico in the 1920’s would be a case in point. The rupture of the Reformation took place in what were formerly Catholic nations. Never underestimate original sin and the hunger of men for power.

While we might hope and work for the day when earthly realms would recognize Christ and his Church, we leave such eventualities to divine providence. Anything else would be a pelagian nod to earthly utopias. Our emphasis is always upon the kingdom of Christ which is ushered in by God’s grace.

Some critics, particularly within the SSPX, would criticize the model of religious liberty taught by the late Fr. John Courtney Murray. They go so far as to fault its promulgation at Vatican II as the source for global apostasy and secularization. However, Father Murray simply gave voice to what he saw as the American experiment. I would argue that it was not an ingredient in the subsequent conflict with modernity, Vatican II or no Vatican II.

It is simplistic to demonize the council or to give a heightened importance to the pre-conciliar Church that it did not possess. The council was an attempt by the Church to respond to a changing world. Not everything worked out and many purposely distorted the meaning and purpose of the gathering. However, the world’s bishops did gather, it was a legitimate council, and the Pope ratified it. Those who utterly reject it will find themselves in opposition to a crucial Church teaching— that the universal Magisterium so gathered is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. It is no wonder that those who oppose the council are neither united to the majority of the world’s bishops nor in juridical union with the Holy See. There are only two options open to critics of the council. Either there was a misapplication of the council by those who invented a “spirit of Vatican II” or there is no supernatural agency protecting ecumenical councils, the Magisterium and the Pope. It is for this reason that castigating the council is a very dangerous thing for a “faithful” Catholic to do. It leads either to a Catholicized variation of Protestantism or to atheism.

It is true that Cardinal Ottaviani shared a number of concerns about the council and his view regarding Church/state relations. It is no secret that this holy prelate was unhappy, especially given that his schema for the council was brushed aside and replaced. But he was only one man and in the end he was obedient. The fact remains that the majority of the world’s bishops and the Pope signed off on the council documents. The issue here is clearly one of ecclesiology. Pope Benedict XVI was at the council and yet critics would try and tell him what was what. The arrogance in all this is insufferable.

Church social teaching cannot be merely theoretical but must reflect the pragmatic reality of the world where we find ourselves. While there are stable elements, the political teaching reacts to the world around us: the disappearance of monarchies, the rise of democracies, capitalism and the world economy, the threat of communism, and increased secularism. Today, we would also add the effect of technology and communication, as well as the rise of fundamentalist Islam and their lack of tolerance toward the Church. The Church is seeking for ways to grow and arguing for its right to exist, no matter how societies might change.

Some critics contend that the “post-Vatican II Church” is apparently afraid to sanction those teaching heresy or promoting immorality; however, it is quick to enforce “disciplinary rules.” They resent that Archbishop Lefebvre was disciplined for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate while heretical priests remain in “good standing” to teach heresy and to actively dissent. I would argue that it is no less scandalous for traditionalists to dismiss the guidance of the Holy See. More than discipline is at stake but a fundamental view regarding ecclesiology and divinely appointed authority. The scandal is worse for those who feign fidelity to the Holy See while failing truly to obey the successor of St. Peter. No one expects fidelity from the liberal dissenters. Their only deceit is that they might still claim to be Catholic; but that is a shallow lie through which all but the most ignorant can penetrate. I would also argue for a heavier hand by the Church but I am neither a bishop nor the pope. I am sure the shepherds have their reasons for what they do. I suspect that the most liberal dissenters just do not respond to sanctions. The issue is not whether leftist dissenters have been properly punished; but, rather have breakaway traditionalists displayed sufficient contrition to have the last of their sanctions removed? I would place the highest gravity or wrong with the SSPX. They should have known better. Who knows what good their presence within the Church would have merited these past forty years? Instead, they abandoned her and circled the wagons. The consecration of bishops against the will of the Holy See threatened a parallel church. It is no minor crime. It deserves penance prior to absolution. I think this is the ultimate holdup. They can quickly find fault in Rome but wrongly imagine that they are immaculate and had no other recourse. What they did was wrong. It was a grievous sin. The Pope removed their excommunication, not out of justice but from charity. Pope Benedict XVI is a gentle man where I would have given them ultimatums. I am not convinced that the SSPX will ever return to juridical unity. That is my opinion and I hope I am wrong. Those who too closely align themselves with them, even if just for an anachronistic love of the old liturgy, may find themselves ultimately outside the lawful Catholic Church. They will join the Orthodox churches of the East in their schism from Peter, the ROCK of the Church and Vicar of Christ.

Certainly the license to teach theology has been stripped from numerous liberal theologians. Many have faced discipline and censure, such as: Fr. Leonardo Boff, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Matthew Fox, Fr. Hans Kung, Sister Margaret Farley, and Sister Elizabeth Johnson. The latter two were quite recent and Sister Johnson was my academic advisor many years ago in seminary. I have read all her books and concur with the evaluation of the U.S. bishops about the improper use of metaphor. It is so peculiar that liberal dissenters grieve about their treatment from the “right-wing” Holy See and yet certain arrogant traditionalists cry like babies that they are the only ones getting rough treatment. I would give them all a swift kick in the pants!

While there is much talk about a silent schism and a liberal fifth column of bishops who oppose Rome while weak bishops look on passively, I would include all four of the SSPX bishops as still another column opposed to the Magisterial teaching office and the living Pope. Those who castigate the council and Rome will become sedevacantists, mark my words. Liberal bishops are dying off and yet many of them would still bend the knee to Rome. The SSPX bishops have made themselves autonomous and the arbiters of all things Catholic. They want Rome to bend to them! Only the Magisterium under the Pope has the authority to interpret past Magisterial documents. The wolves are coming from every side; yes even some of the so-called sheep-dogs may revert to their wolfish ancestry. Defenders of the SSPX are wrong to say that four bishops (who are even fighting among themselves) can trump the Pope and 5,000 bishops who teach and minister in union with him! Sorry, but they are very much mistaken.

Addressing traditionalists, the Pope has given you the freedom to worship with the Tridentine Mass. You should be satisfied with that, say your prayers, raise your families, and steer clear of critiquing a lawful council of Holy Mother Church and the Holy See. Do not join the renegades, no matter what pretense to holiness or devotion they might exhibit.

I love our traditions. I see continuity in our faith. There is no pre-Vatican II Church. There is no post-Vatican II Church. There are various disciplines and rites, but old or new, there is only the Mass— the sacrifice of Calvary from which we receive the “bread of life” and the chalice of salvation”— the real presence of the risen Lord.

But I have no stomach for trouble-makers on the left or right. Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope. He is Peter. He is the Vicar of Christ. If you want to be saved, be subject to him and to those bishops in union with him— period.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, Magisterium, Morality, Politics, Pope, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | 10 Comments »

The Scandal of Father Bob Pierson

Posted on August 24, 2012 by Father Joe

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, what is your take on Father Bob Pierson?

FATHER JOE:

I had heard of him but had not followed the recent business about his ten minute statement that went viral attacking the initiative supported by the U.S. bishops in opposition to so-called same-sex marriages.

What the priest fails to appreciate is that conscience must be properly informed. Freedom of conscience is not relative moral license. Otherwise, the cause of conscience could be rallied not only for homosexuality but also for other evils like polygamy, bestiality and pederasty. Rather, true liberty comes with an orientation to that which is true and good. Obedience to divine positive law (as revealed in the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and natural law (as ascertained through the right use of reason to the objective order) makes us truly free. The commission of sin and immoral acts brings not freedom but spiritual bondage.

The priest in the video takes statements from the Church and churchmen out of context, much as a fundamentalist minister might from the Bible to support his claims. Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope, has certainly always taught about the obligation in following conscience; however, he has likewise insisted that homosexuality is a serious sexual disorientation and that the commission of genital acts associated with it are intrinsically immoral.

Notice that he quotes Cardinal Hume who wrote, “Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.” His quote came in the context of a larger statement in the UK on the homosexual question. While it is certainly permissible to exhibit fraternal and platonic love, as in most friendships, it would be wrong to equate these words with sexual activity and or anal or oral sex. This is another instance where the priest’s remarks are deliberately deceptive. He is well educated and knows what he is doing. This makes him all the more culpable.

Father Pierson is selective in his quotes from the universal catechism. Note that he does not read from CCC #1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Although he attempts to bracket off sacramental marriage in the Church from civilly recognized marriages, such is only a shallow ploy to avoid personal censure and to elicit support from normally orthodox Catholics. The way that society views marriage informs and spills over into how the faithful understand the sacrament of marriage. Indeed, he, himself, is a staff member in an organization where a Protestant minister and an ex-Catholic bless same-sex unions. Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.

The speaker acknowledges that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that homosexuals should not be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. Father Pierson has “come out” that he is a homosexual who opposes Church teaching. We can only hope that he has kept his promise of celibacy. Regardless, he now ridicules the Holy Father and takes a scandalous position against the U.S. bishops and the Marriage Matters campaign. I should add, however, that marriage was threatened long before this issue of so-called same-sex marriage. Marriage was imperiled by growing rates of promiscuity, cohabitation, contraception, adultery, divorce (especially the no-fault variety), and remarriage outside the Church.

Father Pierson had resigned from his post as director of campus ministry after the Vatican officially barred men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from ordination, and because of associated issues in the Church’s faith and moral teaching. “Because I can no longer honestly represent, explain and defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I feel I must resign,” he said. It was also rumored that he was forced out, as he should have been, to avoid further intervention from higher-ups.

His local bishop, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis has strenuously promoted the amendment in opposition to so-called same-sex marriage. He required parishioners in the archdiocese to recite A Prayer for Marriage as part of the General Intercessions at Masses. The U.S. bishops have been very clear in their opposition. Marriage is only genuine if it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Back in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Vatican, made a statement for correction and support of a letter promulgated by the American bishops. Father Pierson selectively quoted him, but strangely and dishonestly, not this statement which speaks to the question at hand.

Follow this link for the statement:

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”

“To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent….”

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

Father Bob Pierson, O.S.B. should be disciplined by his Benedictine order. He has caused scandal and given rise to public dissent from the Church. His faculties to function as a priest should be revoked or curtailed. As a man under ecclesial obedience, he should either publicly recant his dissent or face immediate dismissal. A priest who recommends mortal sin is no longer aligned with Christ. Even if he should be demented or ignorant, he is now on the side of the evil one.

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, I agree with everything you said, albeit except for maybe one small clarification. You write, “Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.” Father Bob would disagree as he was careful to differentiate between civil marriages, which are all “outside the Church” and the Church does not recognize anyway and “sacramental” marriages within the Church. Thus, Father Bob would argue that his voting NO on banning same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with Church teaching on sacramental marriage.

I completely agree this priest should be disciplined severely. But will he be? Almost certainly not, and this is the primary reason for our current crisis. Dietrich Von Hildebrand called it the “Lethargy of the Guardians” as far back as the 70’s. We have suffered under the complete unwillingness of ecclesiastical authority since Vatican II to discipline clerics and bishops for egregious sins against doctrine and the faith. What makes it worse is that the same ecclesiastical authority DOES discipline and bring the hammer down for breaking procedural rules/canon laws that have nothing to do with heresy or doctrine. This sets up a practice which lessens the credibility of the bishops who selectively punish lesser offenses while allowing the most egregious publicly scandalous statements from dissenting priests to go unpunished.

I would dare say it is a sin for this man’s bishop or superior not to discipline him in some way, including at minimum, silencing him on this issue to at least minimize further scandal. Will it happen? I’m willing to bet you a shiny nickel it will not. And it is a slap in the face to you and other good priests who would be punished in a second if you did something like deny Holy Communion to a practicing Lesbian Buddhist who introduced you to her “lover” in the sacristy before Mass.

FATHER JOE:

The priest has a track record beyond the video. (I have not directly linked the video, only a strong critique. Those who want to see it can Google the liberal propaganda.)

He recognizes same-sex marriages as valid, both civilly and in the eyes of God. What confuses the issue is that he denies that there has to be concurrence or approbation from the “institutional” Church. I do not have proof, but like some of his Episcopalian liberals, he would love to bless (and maybe has) these unions. He is a regular speaker at gay-lesbian conventions. Remember, too, that priests are only allowed to witness marriages in the U.S. that are also civilly recognized. We function as both civil magistrates and as ministers of the Church. This is not the case in many countries where Catholic couples are required to endure two ceremonies. Such only happens in the U.S. when there is a convalidation.

I should add, that the Church generally recognizes civil marriages between spouses who are not Catholic. If they are legitimately baptized, then there may be a sacramental character as well. Indeed, if there is a divorce and a desire to marry a Catholic, they would have to pursue a formal case annulment with no guarantees of success. Now we will further have to clarify that we do not recognize adulterous marriages or feigned same-sex marriages. I suspect, given the pressure from the Obama administration, that clergy will eventually have to forfeit their civil authority over marriages in order to distinguish the sacramental covenant from the civil legal contract. Once the definition of marriage diverges, we cannot be party to something in which we do not believe. This may already be happening in light of no fault divorce. I would also not be surprised if the government should seek to compel clergy to witness same-sex marriages. The rights of the Church are very much threatened. I pray that our bishops and priests will have the courage to face fines and imprisonment. The latter is quite possible, if the Church’s stand against homosexuality should be judged as a violation of civil rights laws and as hate-speech.

Further, the priest has been involved in the Catholic gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual community. He knows full well the canonical restraints upon Catholics and does not care. All this is to say that the video is deceptive propaganda. He is a liar. Even when he throws out crumbs of feigned respect to Church discipline, they are lies. If you are familiar with his work in Collegeville, then you would know that he also rejects the “proles” (open to human generation) element that is essential to the covenant of marriage. He literally believes that anal intercourse consummates the bond. It is in light of all this that I said that he is a heretic regarding the sacrament of marriage.

In regards to disciplinary measures, they may actually be in the works. Had he been a secular or diocesan priest matters might have been easier. The Benedictines tend to protect their own and have a rather progressive track record in his particular community. One of them (Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB) recently attacked the corrected translation of the Mass at the national Call to Action convention. They also honored the Lesbian Buddhist-Catholic you mentioned and the pro-abortion Catholic Maryland governor was also in attendance. There are a lot of trouble-makers to go around these days.

Orthodox and traditional churchmen have a higher capacity for suffering in that they love the Church and seek to be obedient while the other side really does not care; liberal breakaway groups, as with Archbishop Milingo and Washington’s own Father George Stallings, were also censured and even faced excommunication. In this sense, there is some parallel. I suspect that many in the Church find the contemporary situation almost overwhelming given the pervasive dissent. During this silent and not so silent schism, there is also the worry that the wrong action might lead the ignorant or weak of faith out of the Church. You are right, not all shepherds are to be trusted. But we must also be careful NOT to spread calumny and to hurt good men who are doing their best.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be hoping that attrition and orthodox replacements among the clergy might hold the answer. My worry is that he, himself, is not a young man. I have found an almost uncharitable delight in how Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the new Ordinary for San Francisco is making the gay establishment squirm and fret. They were pouting the other day because he outlawed drag queens at fundraisers! Really?

Again, do not be fooled. He might say that “…for committed, same-sex couples is not the Sacrament of Matrimony,” but he really does see it as analogous. Remember, sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin. There is nothing equivalent to it. As a priest he knows this. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Bishops are right on this one. So-called same-sex marriages are indeed a threat to the genuine covenant of marriage, natural or sacramental. There is no loop-hole or escape clause that would allow Catholics to support institutional sodomy.

STEPHEN:

Thanks for the background. In this video he seems to take the stance of…”who cares what the state of MN deems as ‘marriage’ since the Church only recognizes sacramental marriages anyway?” He argues the flip side of religious freedom by stating that the Church should not dictate to the state how it defines “marriage” as civil and Church marriages are separate entities and (in his mind) serve different purposes.

FATHER JOE:

The secular sphere in the public forum would not appreciate marriage as a sacrament. Rather, the point of intersection between the Church and state is the traditional view of marriage as a “natural bond.” The growing division between the Church’s view of marriage, as well as that of natural law, is the reason why someone like Bai Macfarlane has campaigned heavily for traditional marriage and against no fault divorce. Some of her supporters would claim that the conflict or opposition between the civil and ecclesial view of marriage has reached a breaking point, in both the heterosexual orientation and its permanence. They argue that clergy should opt out entirely from working within the system. They suggest that the priest who witnesses any marriage for the state has corrupted (by association) the Catholic understanding. This argument becomes even more defensible if society should formally equate same-sex unions with heterosexual marriages. While priests will not officiate at the feigned marriages of homosexuals and lesbians; will the truth be compromised by our continuing partnership with government in witnessing marriages and signing civil licenses? But what is the alternative? Priests in Europe and Asia often find that in the dual ceremony-system, couples tend to cohabitate if there is any extended duration between the vows before a judge and those before a priest.

The priest errs seriously, by his own admission, for failing to fault the homosexual lifestyle as sinful. Indeed, he seems to praise and to encourage the commission of evil. People of the same gender can be friends but they cannot be spouses. A legal fiction will not make it so.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 8 Comments »

Dim Prospects for the Society of St. Pius X

Posted on July 19, 2012 by Father Joe

I would not argue against the desire for the Society of St. Pius X to preserve its identity, as long as such does not include a persistent and deliberate opposition to the rest of the Church’s self-understanding.

I would also not argue against the discernment of a silent apostasy to which we must respond. However, we must not be deaf to the loud or blatant rebellion and dissent from various members, on the right and left, that afflicts the institution founded by Christ. The greatest threat to papal authority today is not a strained collegialism but an arrogant disobedience. Given their continued participation in this assault, I am not optimistic that the conditions demanded upon by the Society will pass muster with the Holy See.

Despite the negotiations, reconciliation will not come by spurning the directives of the Holy Father while not budging upon their own obstinacy toward an authentic Ecumenical Council of the Church, Vatican II. Any such forced reconciliation would damage real ecclesial unity. While they speak of “canonical normalization,” they cannot even concur with the living Church over which Code of Canon Law actually applies and is in force. Despite their profession in the “monarchial constitution” of the Church under the Pope, they feel they still need a “deliberative vote” before deciding if they will listen to him or not. Is it not peculiar that they attack collegialism in the universal Church but demand upon it for themselves, even arguing that it trumps papal demands? That is certainly not my idea of ecclesial obedience.

I am also not blind to the possible shades of Father Feeney in reference to the Church “outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find means leading to salvation.” They are usually very careful not to associate themselves with these extremists, despite a shared affection for traditionalism. While the Church is certainly the great mystery or sacrament of salvation where we encounter Christ, this would seem to invalidate even the more restrained strands of ecumenism. The Church has affirmed that elements of Catholicism with which the Protestants absconded like baptism and faith in Jesus Christ still have some pervading value. While the issue is more complicated with Jews, we acknowledge that Christ is the fulfillment of the one covenant that God first established with them (Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope). The Church is necessary for salvation because there is no way to the Father apart from Jesus Christ. The Church is his Mystical Body. Thus, both are one and integral to salvation. The irony is that if the Society refuses reunion then they will be condemned by their own definition as outside that visible body “by which the supreme power of government . . . belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth.” The only possible solution they might find for this conundrum would be the sedevacantism that some of them apparently have already embraced. Declaring the Chair of Peter vacant, they can define themselves as the true Church and appoint one of their own bishops as the Pope, or in actuality as an anti-pope. Given online sermons and writings from various of their priests, my suspicions are that a number of them will join the Society of St. Pius V in this regard. I hope I am proven wrong.

Further, it is one thing to say that we oppose the abuses from the nebulous spirit of Vatican II; however, they continue to castigate the council itself. As I recall, the Holy See implied that such would be a deal-breaker. It is certainly okay and proper “to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church.” Vatican II must be understood or interpreted in light of the traditions and constant faith of the Church. However, instead of seeing continuity, they stress a break “in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.” While it lacks certain specificity, this statement can readily be interpreted as a general repudiation of the Church today in all her elements from the catechism to the sacraments. Is this what they meant to say?

Only one of the four traditionalist bishops of the Society of St. Pius X has shown any real interest in the overtures of Pope Benedict XVI. Bishops Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta and Richard Williamson threatened internal schism within the Society, warning that any agreement with the Vatican would result in surrendering the fight against worldwide apostasy. This is strong language, literally saying that contemporary Catholicism is a false religion. Indeed, when we look at a number of their priests and apologists, they slam the whole business as capitulation to “the Modernist Pope” and “the Modernist Rome.” Some of their sermons online and various writings go so far as to call counterfeit both the “Novus Ordo” priesthood and the “new” Mass. One writer claimed that since Cardinal Ratzinger was made a bishop under the new ritual that he did not share in the episcopacy and thus could not be a genuine pope. People like that will not want to “pollute” themselves with any association with the rest of us. There is a lot of wishful thinking, but after almost a half-century separation, many of them have gotten used to their independence. Slamming the rest of the Church and slurring the Holy Father, at least in sermons and in routine discourse has become second-nature. They do not seem the least bit afraid that they might be committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Even Bishop Bernard Fellay has lamented this problem. It has become a habit hard or next to impossible to break. They will not reconnect with what they see as the enemy.

Pope Benedict XVI was very kind to lift their excommunication. However, I would not be surprised if Lefebvrites should invoke its reimposition. After all, they never actually acknowledged it anyway. All it would take is the consecration of another unapproved bishop. Such would force the Church’s hand. The Society itself seems aware that their current response will not suffice for Rome. Thus, they will not be coming home any time soon. While pledging fidelity, they are not going to budge until (in their estimation) the day comes “when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.” In other words, they are saying that they are RIGHT and Rome is WRONG and that nothing will change until the post-Vatican II leadership gives in.

(Lumen Gentium) “Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”–Pope Paul VI

Given in Rome at St. Peter’s on November 21, 1964.

I will now wait for hell to freeze over.

I do not think the devil will be wearing a coat any time soon.

Responding to the Pope, here is the difficult condition laid down by the Lefebvrites for reunion: “The freedom to preserve, share and teach the sound doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the unchanging truth of the divine tradition and the freedom to accuse and even to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.”

Indeed, it looks like the devil is stoking the fire.

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller explains (July 20): “The purpose of dialogue is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, but we cannot negotiate on revealed faith, that is impossible. An Ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”

Can the Society of St. Pius X Really Be Reconciled?

Archbishop DiNoia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X

SSPX recognizes papal authority, hints discussions will continue

Eternal Rome vs. the Magisterium: A Contemporary Myth

SSPX Calls Vatican Recociliation Offer ‘Clearly Unacceptable’

Society of St. Pius X vs. Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Lefebvrians say they can only accept doctrinal preamble on three “conditions”

Vatican’s Doctrine Chief: Pius X Society Must Accept Vatican II Teachings

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Eucharist, Faith, Magisterium, Pope, Tradition | 19 Comments »

The PATHEOS Portal

Posted on May 22, 2012 by Father Joe

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Roman-Catholicism.html

The PATHEOS portal advertises itself as “hosting the conversation of faith,” however— it does more than this, it seeks to reframe and/or to delineate religious truth. While several good Catholic blogs are hosted; it seeks neutrality with other religious or non-religious systems that is not possible without compromise and contradiction. For instance, while admitting that Catholicism “traces its history to Jesus of Nazareth,” which it defines as merely an “itinerant preacher,” the quick facts given stipulate the following:

The Roman Catholic Church formed between the 3rd to the 5th centuries C.E.
The bishops formed a “universal” church.
The exact date of the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church is indeterminable.
Many historians suggest that Pope Leo I (440-461) is the first to claim universal jurisdiction over the worldwide Church, thus initiating the rise of the papacy, a uniquely Roman Catholic structure.

While the nomenclature of “Roman Catholic” and “Pope” develops over time, the Church is directly instituted by Jesus Christ, God-made-man. The apostles were bishop-priests. There was no generic first and second century Christianity. Those who accepted Christ in faith and baptism were Catholic Christians. All the apostles and disciples were Catholic. The Virgin Mary was a Catholic. Jesus calls Simon ROCK or Peter and says that he will build his Church on this ROCK. He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom and universal jurisdiction as his visible shepherd. While there is certainly development, all the important elements go back to Christ and the apostles. Anti-Catholic critics have long contended for the late institution of the Church. Revisionist Catholics, even in academia, spout similar nonsense. These are not credible historians, no matter what alphabet soup follows their names. It seems to me that while individual voices at PATHEOS are orthodox, the site is tainted by a religious relativism that spills over into the section about Catholicism. Might this represent the wrong type of ecumenism about which Pope Benedict XVI has warned us? I think so. There is no sense of the supernatural nature of Mother Church. Dissenting voices are given as much legitimacy as those which speak the truth. There is no imprimatur or protection to insure against misleading statements. Attempting to appease many authorities, there is a definite religious indifferentism and denominationalism. Both are contrary to Catholic teaching and are affronts to the truth.

Mark Shea has a good article on his blog (hosted at PATHEOS) entitled, “Why it’s Our Ruling Class vs. the Rest of Us.” It alerts us to media consolidation and control of information, even religious information. I did not even know that PATHEOS existed until after I looked at the post and had my eye drawn away to the ads and links. I found it very unsettling and confusing. I hope over time the problems can be fixed, but I fear a continuing tension and struggle over what is or is not genuine Catholicism.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Evangelization, Faith, Links, Magisterium, Patheos, Pope, Priests, Religion | 4 Comments »

Was Peter, the First Pope, Married?

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Father Joe

peter333 QUESTION:

You claim that Peter was the first Pope, and yet Scripture attests that he was married. Since this great apostle could be married, why not all bishops and priests?

RESPONSE:

Restricting ourselves to the Gospels, no doubt you are referring to Peter’s mother-in-law. We read in Luke 4:38-39: “After he left the synagogue, he entered the house of Simon. Simon’s mother-in-law was afflicted with a severe fever, and they interceded with him about her. He stood over her, rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up immediately and waited on them.” See the story again in Mark 1:30.

The Catholic Church does not deny that Peter was married. However, note her general absence in the New Testament texts. We do not even know her name. We only encounter the mother-in-law, never his wife or any children. Indeed, throughout the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, references are made to Peter’s activities and travels; but, only a vague intimation by Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5 that he had a right to travel with his “believing wife.” If it were not for this mention in the epistle, one might suppose that Peter was a widower. Tradition suggests that his wife was martyred. It is peculiar that although the wife would ordinarily have cared for the needs of guests, Peter had to rely upon his wife’s mother.

However, granting that she was still around (somewhere); she evidently assumed a secondary role in his life behind his leadership of the infant Church. Indeed, her insignificance in the biblical witness would seem to provide weight to the supporters of priestly celibacy. Like Peter, bishops and priests might do better to serve God’s people without the distraction of wives and children. Jesus gives his sheep to Peter. Pastors similarly love Christ and care for their flocks. This is the emphasis of Catholic ministry, our family in faith.

This post was never meant to be a defamation against Peter’s wife. I have also edited it to avoid any peripheral discussion about whether or not the tradition can be trusted regarding her martyrdom; given that some authorities speculated that she might have died earlier and/or that there might have been a second bond. It is probably best that we accept the tradition at face value.

Here are early testimonies for the martyrdom of Peter’s wife:

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (died around 215 AD)

(THE STROMATA, 7:11)

So then he undergoes toils, and trials, and afflictions, not as those among the philosophers who are endowed with manliness, in the hope of present troubles ceasing, and of sharing again in what is pleasant; but knowledge has inspired him with the firmest persuasion of receiving the hopes of the future.

Wherefore he contemns not alone the pains of this world, but all its pleasures.
They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, Remember the Lord. Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

Thus also the apostle says, that he who marries should be as though he married not, and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.

Was not then faith in the hope after death conspicuous in the case of those who gave thanks to God even in the very extremities of their punishments? For firm, in my opinion, was the faith they possessed, which was followed by works of faith.

EUSEBIUS (around 265 AD to 340 AD)

(ECCLESIAL HISTORY, 3:30)

1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. Or will they, says he, reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.

2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, ‘Remember the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them. This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.

DISCUSSION

GERRY:

Thanks for all your insights, Fr. Joe. They are priceless! I’d like to let you know that I look forward to reading the “feeds” from your blog site. God Bless!

KARL:

Who would sit in judgment for all the annulments? Certainly the Pope does not have the time and men who cannot keep their houses in order (like those divorced and seeking annulments) certainly should not sit in judgment of each other and their wives.

What would happen to a bishop who abandoned his wife? Should he continue to serve as a bishop? Who would pay for the divorce, alimony and child support settlements? Who would get the Cathedral, the wife?

Anyone who thinks it is wise to have a married clergy is likely naive, foolish or has difficulty keeping their mind off their private parts. Oops, or Orthodox or one of the Uniate Rites.

ALEXANDER ROMAN: As a Ukrainian Catholic, I wanted to take great exception to a comment on that refers to Eastern Catholics as “uniates.” That term is pejorative and offensive – that it is used by a Latin Rite Catholic is not helpful.

FATHER JOE:

Churches of the East do not permit dating priests. They have to be married before ordination. Only single men become bishops. There is a different sense of priesthood between those who are celibate and the ones who are married. The first married Episcopalian priest in the U.S. who became a Catholic priest is now divorced. His wife left him, saying that nothing in the Episcopal church prepared them for what his life would be like. She gave him an ultimatum, leave the Catholic priesthood or she would leave him. He is now a divorced and celibate priest.

CATHOLIC GIRL:

Catholics and Protestants arguing for a married Priesthood (or worse those who propose that Mary was not a perpetual Virgin) miss the point with their literal interpretations.

Catholics are not literalists (although most Protestants are). We hold the Bible as no more or less important as Church tradition and teaching. Remember who put the Bible together – the Catholic Church. Who better to understand and interpret the meaning?

The important part of the message about St. Peter is that he – Peter – represents the Church. Christ was returning to the Father and so he gave Peter a duty as the first Pope and left us with the Church as the visible symbol of his love. He specifically said that he would be with the Church until the end of time and gave it the “keys to heaven,” what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven.

He knew Peter was not perfect – after all, he denied he knew Christ three times. He did expect and continues to expect that we follow him and that means that unmarried persons should remain celibate – as he did.

Only the Catholic Church has the keys to the kingdom. Pope Benedict says that the tradition will not be changed. The Church isn’t a democracy and those that don’t agree are simply not Catholic. So he’s the boss and that discussion is closed!

MARK:

The Church has never taught the two sacraments are incompatible; neither did Our Lord. That the Church has chosen to promote celibacy in the model of Christ should be sufficient for the discussion.

“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”—St Augustine

FATHER JOE:

It is probable that his wife later suffered martyrdom but her absence from the Scripture texts is still a significant fact. Except for the fact that Peter had the right to bring her along, there is little or nothing that can be cited to show that his wife actually did participate in his most important missionary journeys.

You are right that the sacrament of marriage and that of holy orders are not intrinsically incompatible with each other; although, there is early evidence of tension. Many of the Popes and saints over the centuries have written about celibacy in the priesthood and religious life as if it were the best course to pursue. Could it be said that just as there was an organic development of doctrine, that celibacy for priests reflects a positive evolution in discipline as well, also under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I think so. Indeed, there is growing evidence that priests who were married during the apostolic and patristic age were expected to practice perpetual continence after ordination.

ANGELA:

I personally believe that leaders of the church should be able to get married if they want; but I think it is great when they are capable of remaining celibate. I guess I feel if God has called you to become a priest, then he has also called you to become celibate since that is in accordance to what priesthood is.

I no longer attend a Catholic church, although I grew up in one. I have met some great priests and some not so great. I have also met some great married pastors and some not so great. It does talk about how it is better for a man to remain celibate unless you are incapable. I believe if a man can do this successfully he will be greatly rewarded.

Unfortunately, if a man is choosing to go into the priesthood and have lust issues, they may want to consider what going into the priesthood really means. He should either first address such issues or consider the possibility that maybe God wants him to be a leader of men in a different way that allows marriage. He should not necessarily change denominations if he feels his faith corresponds more greatly with Catholic belief systems; but there are so many ways to be a shepherd among men and yet be married.

That being said, I still admire the man and woman who can devote their hearts, minds, and souls solely to God and remain pure in heart, mind, body and soul.

JAKE:

Peter was a [expletive deleted] and his wife was well to be rid of him. Peter is well said to be the founder of the ‘mother of [expletive deleted] church’. Women were nothing more than cattle in the [expletive deleted] bible and the men, including jayzus were perverted [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted]. The catholic church is indeed the true church of jayzus. If priests aren’t [expletive deleted] each other, they are [expletive deleted] innocent children and being paid by stupid people to do so.

FATHER JOE:

I must report your IP number (Atlanta) to the authorities for misuse of this forum. Sorry, but you forced my hand.

JAKE:

Peter=child molester
jayzus=[deleted pejorative word for homosexuals]
catholic church=mother of [plural expletive deleted]

FATHER JOE:

Jake=Bigot

LUCIA:

It is an interesting topic and one I am not sure I yet fully understand. It is my understanding that the vows of celibacy from the priesthood all the way to the pontiff are a matter of the disciplines of the Church. Its necessity is established by the Authority of the Church based on the inspired judgments of the Church.

Thus it is possible that the Church can change its mind on this point for its own reasons, or make exceptions to the rule. For example I know that in cases of Eastern Catholics, those from the predominantly Orthodox regions which are now in full communion with Rome, there are exceptions allowing married priests. None of this creates a problem.

So to my thinking, if as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius relate, Peter was in fact married as an apostle/bishop it doesn’t matter. If the Church then later decided that it would require celibacy of priests and all the clergy in the higher ranks as well then that is the rule. The rule established by the authority of the Church. If Peter was not married as a bishop likewise it remains a discipline the Church has established and maintained for good reason. And one which, in limited cases to which it makes exception.

Do I understand correctly? Thanks.

FATHER JOE:

Sounds like you do. Priests promise celibacy when they are ordained transitional deacons.

MD:

Lucia has the simplest answer but the most profound.

CO:

First of all, the Bible refers to Peter’s mother-in-law. My assumption is that there is a wife and the Scriptures do not tell me different…meaning, he was married. My concern, however, is the belief that he was the first Pope. If you are basing it on the fact that Jesus said that on this Rock I will build my church, and he was speaking to Peter, Christ is the Rock, not Peter. Peter in the original Greek is petros, which in interpreted… “pebble.”

FATHER JOE:

Actually, in common usage the word PETROS could mean more than pebble. The reason why that word is used instead of the more common Greek word for ROCK is because Greek words have gender. Peter is given the male version of the word. In itself it is a transliteration of the Aramaic which makes no distinctions about ROCK. Peter is literally a chip off the old block, Jesus Christ, who is the foundation stone of the Catholic Church. Peter is Rock because Jesus is ROCK.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Faith, Marriage, Priests, Religion, Sexuality, Uncategorized | 11 Comments »