• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest
    Barbara's avatarBarbara on Ask a Priest
    Josh's avatarJosh on Mixed Signals about Homosexual…
    gjmc90249's avatargjmc90249 on Marian Titles & the Mantle…
    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest

Question 7 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 23, 2013 by Father Joe

7. The Openness of the Married Couple to Life

a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?

When was the last time the average Catholic heard a homily on Humanae vitae? We had a Dominican priest speak about it here at Holy Family Parish a few years ago and I got a letter of complaint and another one went to the Archdiocese. The dissenters count on silence and threaten to hold back financial support otherwise. Many priests also dissent (although they are an aging group) and one told me to my face that he assured penitents that taking the pill was responsible parenthood and not a sin. I chastised him in private and when he refused to change his errant ways I reported him to the Archdiocese. What happened? Nothing, he remained in place with a good size parish and school until he died a year ago. All most people know about the teaching is what the news media and biased family and friends tell them. Kids often stop taking catechesis in eighth grade and the more complicated topics like birth control are not age appropriate. Do our marriage preparation efforts bring it up? Humanae vitae requires a basic shared appreciation of Christian anthropology: the nature and purpose of the conjugal act, a respect for the dignity of persons, acknowledgment for the design of the Creator and his providence, and the inseparability of union and an openness to procreation. A general shallowness makes it difficult or impossible for many people to comprehend the Church’s argument. While fidelity was once procured because of a profound sense of duty and obedience; such comes across today as arbitrary and overly complicated. We cannot blindly trust in a deontology toward authority when Church leadership has been compromised and maligned. High school and young adult catechesis has to be broadened and made attractive. There is just no way to communicate a cohesive understanding of human personhood and values to children and disinterested adolescents. A grade-school catechesis does not prepare Catholic adults for responding as people of faith in the modern world.

b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?

Do we even have to ask this question? The teaching is broadly rejected. Contraception is the easy way out and now with the HHS Mandate, it is free. Ours society takes pills for everything. We are conditioned to be pill takers. NFP would demand a degree of responsibility and abstinence that some find difficult. Not only are we dealing with sexual addiction, but there is a basic disconnect between the marital act and having babies. Fertility is increasing looked upon as a disease and pregnancy is the expensive curse that results. Contraception permits irresponsibility and the treatment of bodies as toys for recreation. The dignity of the human person is undermined.

c) What natural methods are promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice the teachings of Humanae vitae?

Various forms of NFP are promoted. Critics often confuse them with the older form of Rhythm which often failed because it wrongly treated all female cycles as the same.

d) What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?

Some would throw in my face that Father So-&-So said it was okay. At one time there was some debate. However, now it is almost never mentioned. They have been told that it is all up to their consciences. Of course, the clergy who told them this neglected to mention the need for a properly formed conscience. I doubt that many would even understand the meaning of a dynamic Christian conscience. It needs to be formed in such a way that any judgment made conforms to the truth and respects the Church. The same can be said about the Eucharist. Almost everyone receives, even those in bad marriages and in serious sin.

e) What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?

The Church still generally teaches the orthodox position, but not everywhere. I know one girls’ high school where the religious sister said that she could not formally teach them about contraception but she could pass around a picture book (for educational purposes) with all the available forms of birth control imaged. Civic education is at least more honest, even if more hostile to the faith. Not only is artificial contraception taught, but condoms and similar services are rendered to students. Indeed, my public high school (Suitland, MD) regularly had the school nurse walking kids down to the local abortion clinic during our one hour lunch break. There is also disagreement on other topics like homosexuality and what constitutes tolerance.

f) How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?

Such can only be promoted if Catholics themselves are willing to be a real sign of contradiction. I know one couple with five or six children who are even harassed by parents and siblings for having “too many children.” They argue the economic issue and a lifestyle they are sacrificing. They speak about the environment and accuse them of being selfish for placing such an increased burden upon an already crowded world. Instead of converting the world, Catholics are increasingly trying to live traditional values within a self-imposed ghetto of like-minded “home-schooling” friends. Meanwhile, pressure is building to force them and others to conform to the contemporary hedonism. Benefits are being stripped from those who refuse to attend traditional schools. This has often landed families and home-schooling organizations in the courts. Some jurisdictions have attempted to outlaw home-schooling or to interfere with the curriculum. Is there a way to encourage larger and more faithful families without resorting to an isolation that might later make us more vulnerable to a hostile society? It seems to me that proper formation must come along with an aggressive evangelization. The Catholic/Christian message must be given its place in the public forum. That would also include the usage of all the modern technological ways that people communicate, today.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Marriage, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Question 8 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 22, 2013 by Father Joe

8. The Relationship between the Family and the Person

a) Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?

While Catholic teachings are often reduced to negativity or what couples cannot do, the Church actually speaks to the dignity of persons and our calling as disciples:

“Finally, let the spouses themselves, made to the image of the living God and enjoying the authentic dignity of persons, be joined to one another in equal affection, harmony of mind and the work of mutual sanctification. Thus, following Christ who is the principle of life, by the sacrifices and joys of their vocation and through their faithful love, married people can become witnesses of the mystery of love which the Lord revealed to the world by His dying and His rising up to life again” (GS 52).

While the institution of marriage and family life has weathered many social changes; there are still wonderful and moving examples of living out our discipleship in the modern world. Our people do not deal well with disconnected dogmatism and lack the jargon for theological discourse. What they need are inspiring stories where people of faith witness the Gospel. At the same time we must be wary that there are social and political forces around us that are neither sympathetic to either divine-positive or natural law nor desirous of real dialogue or collaboration with the Church. They would force our hands and redefine for us both faith and family. The task before us is how we might effectively (and not in a belligerent manner) promote the sanctity of life, exclusive heterosexual marriage and the importance of permanence in regard to promises. Again, I would recommend testimonies where we see exemplified mutual respect and unconditional love.

b) What critical situations in the family today can obstruct a person’s encounter with Christ?

The situations are numerous but would include: lack of prayer or knowing how to pray; absence from the Sunday observance; extended 6 to 7 day work weeks, even Sunday; poor formation and general religious ignorance; negative influences which overwhelm Church formation; the substitution of technology for immediate human and family contact; a hostile media; lacklustre sermons and unhappy or disinterested priests, etc.

c) To what extent do the many crisis of faith which people can experience affect family life?

The critical situations are epidemic. Father Peyton, “the Rosary priest,” always insisted that “the family that prays together stays together.” Families need to be the “little Church” where people learn about Jesus, say their prayers and participate weekly at Mass together. Most families today are lapsed from the Sunday Mass. Parents are not reading bible stories or the tales of the saints to their children. The television becomes the new tabernacle where minds and hearts are directed away from the Lord. Preaching is never heard but thousands upon thousands of secular messages flood the senses in programing and commercials. Computers and the internet is another challenge. Hours are spent with the new media but only a few seconds or no time at all is given to prayer or in quality family life. Adding to the challenge is a general religious ignorance. The new evangelization has already focused on this concern but too many of our people have yet to be reached. Do our people really have a personal and corporate relationship with Jesus Christ? Do husbands see themselves as intimately connected to Christ as the priests of their homes? Do wives view themselves in light of the mystery of Mary and the Church? Do they see the child as a great gift and as a reflection of the Christ Child? We have our work cut out for us.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Family, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Question 1 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 20, 2013 by Father Joe

The following series of questions allows the particular Churches to participate actively in the preparation of the Extraordinary Synod, whose purpose is to proclaim the Gospel in the context of the pastoral challenges facing the family today.

1. The Diffusion of the Teachings on the Family in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium

a) Describe how the Catholic Church’s teachings on the value of the family contained in the Bible, Gaudium et spes, Familiaris consortio and other documents of the post-conciliar Magisterium is understood by people today? What formation is given to our people on the Church’s teaching on family life?

There is not much in the way of workshops or seminars on family life or values. People are sometimes challenged by preaching but there is also a deafening silence from certain quarters. The popular media used to reinforce the Christian view of family but this is no longer the case. People are more formed by the secular culture than by the Church. Its interpretation of the family is increasingly open-ended and non-traditional. Those who attempt to restrict any definition of marriage and family are regarded as hateful and bigoted.

Priests and other professional “religious” people might know something of Vatican II documents and papal teachings, but many or most of the laity would not even be able to identify the titles. Except for Marriage Preparation, youth catechesis and preaching, there are probably few opportunities to form people in the Church’s understanding of family life. As for the Bible, there is widespread dissent upon issues like homosexuality and premarital sex. People either ignore the teachings or only view them in the negative sense, i.e. what is forbidden, not what is worthwhile. Indeed, given the clerical pederast scandals, the bishops and priests are not given much credibility as teachers on human sexuality. Even the more respectful are quick to object that celibate priests should tell husbands and wives what they can and cannot do in the bedroom. Many feel that we have lost the fight over artificial contraception and need to move on. Of course, the problem that arises is that of the proverbial slippery slope. Disconnect marriage from procreation and one immediately finds an increase in fornication, cohabitation, homosexual liaisons, and the plight of abortion. Indeed, our people fail to see how a contraceptive mentality is the handmaid to abortion.

A difficulty that many have with biblical teachings is that our Holy Book cannot be used as a clear manual of the moral life. Catholics do not know how to read Scripture in a contextual way. That is one of the reasons why anti-Catholic apologists are often effective with the use of so-called “isolated” proof texts. Our Lord had to deal with this problem over the matter of divorce. He argues that such was not the way it was supposed to be. He explains that Moses allowed divorce because of the “hardness of their hearts.” Thus, the polygamy, use of handmaidens as mistresses and the writ of divorce that we find among Old Testament patriarchs has no binding force upon the consciences of Christians. Everything is interpreted in light of the mystery that is Christ. Turning to the New Testament, many misconstrue the headship of the husband and father as culturally conditioned and not having any permanent value. Others might claim it as support for a dictatorial male role in the family. The Church would rightly speak of the value of both the head (husband/father) and the heart (wife/mother). A body cannot live without either a head or a heart.

Gaudium et spes, may be Vatican II teaching, but we all know how the nebulous “spirit” of the Council has been allowed over the past half-century to supplant genuine and timeless truths taught by the Council fathers. While most in the pews would be ignorant of the document itself; that is not to say that there has been no influence (one way or another) by preaching in light of it. The Council certainly appreciated the problems facing families, many of which are far worse today:

“Yet the excellence of this institution is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance, since polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation. Moreover, serious disturbances are caused in families by modern economic conditions, by influences at once social and psychological, and by the demands of civil society. Finally, in certain parts of the world problems resulting from population growth are generating concern” (GS #47). Redefinitions of marriage would not respect the teaching that “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children” (GS #50).

While the institution of marriage and family life has weathered many social changes; those changes today direct target the family for mutation into an analogous but different type of reality.

Many were enamoured by Pope John Paul II’s personal charm and his role in the collapse of Soviet communism; nevertheless, there remains a disconnect with Familiaris consortio and his depiction of Christian womanhood in another encyclical. He nails on the head the problem we face; however, only a piece-meal treatment is given to his writings and speeches by the media. The media, and even many religious teachers, feel that people are unable or unwilling to comprehend the middle-term or argumentation for the Church’s stances. Many favour contraception but few have ever read or could explain even one contention made in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. Instead, they parrot the so-called experts (really dissenters) who have explored the matters for them. The people then move in the direction of least resistance. They also tend to favour the prejudices of parents and peers who are also more formed by the world than by the Gospel. Pope John Paul II writes: “On the one hand, in fact, there is a more lively awareness of personal freedom and greater attention to the quality of interpersonal relationships in marriage, to promoting the dignity of women, to responsible procreation, to the education of children. There is also an awareness of the need for the development of interfamily relationships, for reciprocal spiritual and material assistance, the rediscovery of the ecclesial mission proper to the family and its responsibility for the building of a more just society. On the other hand, however, signs are not lacking of a disturbing degradation of some fundamental values: a mistaken theoretical and practical concept of the independence of the spouses in relation to each other; serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children; the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values; the growing number of divorces; the scourge of abortion; the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization; the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality” (FC #6). This is still where matters stand. Freedom or choice is apparently made the supreme value and yet the license for some can become the bondage for others. We see this with the government intrusion into the business of churches and the question of religious liberty. The primacy instead should be upon human dignity and objective moral values.

Do couples today even wonder about God’s plan for them in Christian marriage?

Do they see the marriage analogy of Christ and his Church as reflecting any value in their relationships?

Are children seen as the fruit of love and the gift of God, or rather as an accident of passion and a disease to be either medicated away or surgically extracted?

Given that sexual expression outside marriage is now regarded as a rite of becoming, how do we safeguard fidelity in marriage and the value of virginity?.

b) In those cases where the Church’s teaching is known, is it accepted fully or are there difficulties in putting it into practice? If so, what are they?

Is Church teaching really known anywhere or just caricatures of it? As with the commandments, there are a lot of perceived “thou shalt not’s” but not so many affirmative values about the intrinsic goodness and objective qualities of marriage and family. Easy divorce and remarriage, a predominate cohabitation and the mainstreaming of fornication has polluted the waters of popular opinion. The Church is viewed as backward. Traditional families are increasing squeezed into a social ghetto.

c) How widespread is the Church’s teaching in pastoral programs at the national, diocesan and parish levels? What catechesis is done on the family?

Catechesis is reserved to certain stages of life: catechesis for children, RCIA for adults, pre-Cana for engaged couples and maybe baptismal preparation classes for parents with babies. Bible studies rarely focus upon the subject, at least not at length. What other catechesis is there?

d) To what extent — and what aspects in particular — is this teaching actually known, accepted, rejected and/or criticized in areas outside the Church? What are the cultural factors which hinder the full reception of the Church’s teaching on the family?

What do people actually know? It is simple: a man and woman come together and have a baby. They may or may not be married. The man might not even stick around. Of course, with same sex-unions, there is also the increase of adoption and artificial insemination for lesbians. Grandparents also often raise grandchildren when the parents are too busy or do not care to embrace their responsibilities. Two-thirds of our people no longer go to church, so faith is a minimal factor. People look to the liberal media which is largely uninformed about religious questions. Instead of positive witnessing, self-conceited celebrities from television, movies, music and sports are worshipped by fans. The Church’s message often gets lost.

Filed under: Catholic, Family, Magisterium, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Nothing of Immaculata HS is Left

Posted on December 14, 2013 by Father Joe

See article: Demolition in Full Swing at AU Tenley Campus

Dunblane, built as a private estate in the first half of the 19th century, was home to a hunt club in the late 1880s and later an elementary school in the 20th century. Capital Hall was the former site of the Immaculata Seminary, established in 1905 by the Sisters of Providence. It subsequently became Immaculata Preparatory School and then Immaculata High School, which closed in 1986.

The sisters were in a terrible situation. They sold the place for a couple million and the president told us at a dinner afterwards that he felt bad they took the first offer. American University was prepared to pay ten times as much. The religious community had not seen a vocation from the school in a dozen years. I think we could have saved the school. Alumni and families could have purchased it. Moving the campus under new management to Maryland was a farce. The tradition was broken. Poor Msgr. Boland (the Chancellor now a retired bishop) took a lot of heat. An angry person took an ice pick to his car. He was hardly in the loop. The sisters were determined to sell. Many were sick and aging. A great high school died that could have been salvaged. It still saddens me. I recall the last graduation at St. Ann’s next door. Now even the shell is gone.

Filed under: Archdiocese, Catholic, News, Personal, Schools | 4 Comments »

Walmart Store Dedicates Virgin Mary

Posted on December 12, 2013 by Father Joe

MaryMosaic

On Wednesday, Father Brown blessed the mosaic of Our Lady of Guadalupe that is displayed on the outside of the Sherman Heights Walmart (San Diego). The effort was a restoration since the image was taken down from the earlier Farmer’s Market.

“It’s the only Walmart in the world with a plaque of our Blessed Mother,” said Father Richard Brown.

Hail Walmart,
Full of great bargains,
Low prices are with thee.
Blessed art thou among discount stores,
And blessed is the fruit of thy many sales.
Holy Walmart,
Mother of Low Wages,
Prey on us customers,
Now and at the hour of our shopping.
Amen.

“It’s something the community members asked for, the business owners asked for,” said store manager Luciano Villela. “We’re very happy to please the community by doing this.”

Filed under: Catholic, Mary, News | 2 Comments »

The Apostles’ Creed, the Righteous Dead & Hell

Posted on December 8, 2013 by Father Joe

limbo

Bob brings up an interesting inquiry regarding the Apostles’ Creed.  He writes:

“During the celebration of the Mass and reciting the Creed we say, ‘He descended into hell.’ The classroom posters for the children say, ‘He descended unto the dead.’ Now I was taught that our Lord Jesus descended into hell to show Satan and his followers that he is the Light of the World and that he has the power over sin and death; but based on research, professors of theology are using the Greek word “Hades” meaning place of the dead and as I remember it was similar to purgatory. Please give your thoughts on this.”

Sorry to say, it sounds like Bob and others were taught wrong. The current translation of the Creed at Mass uses the word HELL. The poster has the previous liturgical translation of the Creed, UNTO THE DEAD. It changed with the newer and corrected translation of the Roman Missal. A translation that was popular in Anglican circles rendered it as UNTO THE QUICK. Hell is a more literal translation; unfortunately, it can also be misunderstood. It refers not to the hell of the damned but to the more generic abode of the dead, what the Church termed as THE LIMBO OF THE FATHERS. Such a place no longer exists. Sin had breached humanity from God; the gates of heaven were closed with the sin of Adam and Eve. None could enter true heaven until the coming of the Christ. The righteous dead (Jews and Gentiles) awaited their Savior. Jesus descends into hell or unto the dead or into the limbo of the fathers so that they might now be translated into heaven. The Eastern churches have an icon where Jesus flies from the flames carrying Adam and Eve out by the hair. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. There is no way to the Father except through him. He is the bridge or “pontifex.” His saving Cross makes possible our passage. We have been redeemed by the Lord. He pays the price for our entry. It is an affirmation that none are saved apart from Christ. As I said, the limbo of the fathers is not hell of the damned, not heaven of the saints and not purgatory. Those three realities still exist. However, at the final consummation and judgment, purgatory will also cease to be. The poor souls would have completed their passage to the heavenly shore.  Then there will be two realities, heaven (the victory of love) and hell (the frustration of hatred and the wrong kind of loving).

Filed under: Bible, Catholic, Devil, God, Hell, Jesus, Justification, Purgatory, Redemption, Religion, Salvation | 1 Comment »

Can the Most Wicked Be Forgiven?

Posted on December 7, 2013 by Father Joe

devils summer-picnic-outdoors-clip-art_420988

Mike asked a few questions about forgiveness that I have heard from others and are worth sharing.

1.  I have been wondering about forgiveness in general. Are there any sins so bad that they will never be forgiven, regardless of how much you repent and accept Jesus?

As long as you are alive, there is hope. If you are sorry, you can be forgiven. However, after death, our orientation and choice becomes permanent.  Of course, we are creatures of habit.  The longer we wallow in our sins, the less able and willing we might be to crawl out of the hole we have made for ourselves.  God wants to save us; but, we must also want to be saved.

2.  As an extreme hypothetical, if Lucifer suddenly repented and asked for forgiveness from God, would he be forgiven?

This is regarded as a nonsense question. It contains within itself a self-contradiction. The devil is a pure spirit. He lives outside of time. He has turned away from God. He cannot turn back. He hates God. This status is forever. Hell is more than a place. It is also a disposition. That is why the devil can say, “I am hell.” We should not feel sorry for or romanticize about the devil. We in our mortality are capricious in our choices. But the angels and the souls of the dead live in eternity. All they know is the eternal now. They are what they are. There is neither the desire nor the opportunity to change. Just as the saints are safely in their heaven forever and ever; so too are the damned fixed in their perdition, lost forever. The fallen angels define something of their angelic natures by their rebellion. They cannot be remade.

3.  Does God’s forgiveness only apply to humans, in other words?

Yes, only “living human beings” can avail themselves of God’s mercy. The demons would have none have it. Indeed, they hate the Divine Mercy, itself.

Another question came from Sarah.  She writes:

I did the Blasphemy Challenge years ago and regret it now that I’m re-discovering faith. Was it an unforgivable sin?

As long as there is breathe in your body, sin can be forgiven.  The atheists who promoted the “challenge” did not understand hyperbole and the correct reading of Scripture.  Sin is only unforgiveable when there is no sorrow for sin and repentance.  One cannot simultaneously reject God’s mercy and invoke it through contrition.  Are you sorry for your sins?  The Divine Mercy is ready and desirous of forgiving you.

Filed under: Angels, Catholic, Confession, Devil, Discipleship, Faith, Forgiveness, God, Hell, Religion, Salvation, Sin | Leave a comment »

What Does a Priest Think About Space Aliens?

Posted on December 6, 2013 by Father Joe

my-alien-hiAnthony came to me with questions for a school project.  They have to do with the possible existence of “outer space” aliens.

1. Do you believe that life exists on other planets in the universe?  Why or why not?

This question requires certain specificity in both the asking and in responding.  First, what do you mean by life?  Catholicism has always taught that there is extraterrestrial life and that it is sentient.  However, this is in reference to angelic beings:  both the good angels and the demons.  They are spiritual creatures, not a composite of soul and meat like us.  (Please note that atheistic authorities would object that we are only “thinking meat” and that there is no spiritual component.  It is somewhat ironic that these same “experts” would insist that there must be life elsewhere in the universe, although there is no proof at present.  Further, they suffer from a type of terrestrial racism because they suppose that all alien life must be akin to us, either biological or by extension, mechanical.)

Second, if you mean to exclude angelic creatures, then as a reasonable man I am well aware of both the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox.  Half of all stars in the universe may have earth-like planets, but this in itself only gives us a probability, not a certainty.  We suppose an understanding of the conditions for life, like water, but what if we are too restrictive?  Might there be a world where the climate is hellish and the denizens breathe sulfur?  We know that there are micro-organisms on our planet that are dependent upon methane.

Third, even if 100,000 planets in our own galaxy might sustain life as we know it, would such life exist by necessity and/or would it be sentient?  While I think it likely that there is something “out there” even if microbial, there is no corresponding guarantee that it would be sentient.  Catholicism associates consciousness with self-reflective thinking.  The scholastics viewed this as not merely a property of the brain but of the soul.  We might live in a universe of plants, bugs and cattle.  The reason no one answers our calls into space might be because of the distances, but such could also be due to the fact that no one is listening or that no one cares to respond.  Intelligence could be of two orders, if it exists:  one would be like the ant or bee.  They know a genuine sophistication and a civilization (of sorts) might develop.  But they would be largely robots.  Concepts like freedom or compassion might be meaningless to them.

The second scenario would allow for genuine sentience and such creatures, if they exist, would be ensouled.  Here I think of C.S. Lewis and his creatures of Mars who had not fallen from grace and the Venusians who were just now facing their moral test in the garden.  Would such creatures suffer from original sin?  If so, then how and would Christ’s redemptive work include them?  What this means is that they would be asked if they are redeemed or damned.

A recent suggestion for the celestial silence is the theory that instead of federations of planets, star faring societies tend to wipe out the competition before they can become a threat.  If true, then there might be an armada of asteroids being directed to us and our sun as I speak.  There is no guarantee that aliens will be benevolent.

To answer your question, personally, I do not know if there is alien life.  Mathematical probabilities might be wrong.  We could possibly be alone in the material universe.  I do not know God’s mind about this.  Of course, given the various string theories, might life still exist in another universe?  Hum, where is heaven and hell, precisely?  The speculation about other dimensions in science may bring us back to the truths in religion.

2. How would you react, if actual proof of alien life were discovered?

It represents no challenge to faith.  The Creator made it all.  I would probably respond by saying a loud and drawn out, Wooooow!

3. Should humans travel into space?

Certainly we should not neglect the issues of earth by doing so; but, yes, I think that missions into space are part of our developmental trajectory as a species.  It reflects an important element of man’s intelligent curiosity.  There are things to know and resources to exploit.  I think there should be a chaplain on the International Space Station.  Indeed, I would argue for permanent bases on the moon before we tackle the more difficult task of establishing settlements on Mars.  There is no world in our solar system apart from earth that is hospitable to human life.  Whether or not Mars or one of the moons of the gas giants can be terraformed is a topic for science fiction and the distant future.

Filed under: Aliens, Atheism, Catholic, Creation, Redemption, Religion, Science | 8 Comments »

A Rebuttal to Sex and the Single Priest

Posted on December 5, 2013 by Father Joe

priest_1THE NEW YORK TIMES, December 1, 2013

Sex and the Single Priest by BILL KELLER

Given that he long ago quit the Church, it is more than disingenuous for Bill Keller to cite the ancient corpse of his own Catholicism as grounds for critiquing priestly ministry or to belittle the celibate love realized by the majority of our clergy.  He admits that he surrendered “citizenship” in the Catholic kingdom and is no longer “subject to [the Church’s] laws.  Nevertheless, he would urge change to a law that speaks to priestly character and service like no other.  It would seem to me that he forfeited long ago any right to participate in this inner-church discussion about priestly celibacy and the prospect of married priests.

The catalyst for his article is his tenuous tie to a religious sister from his school days; and not surprisingly one that met and married a priest.  She gave up her veil and he took off his collar 41 years ago.  The writer of the editorial is very sympathetic to them and their story.  He is far less so to good priests and nuns who kept their vows.  While he contends that the couple remained within the embrace of Catholicism while he did not; I would argue that both defected, although his was the more honest breech.  John and Roberta Hydar simply went from being young dissenters to elderly ones.  He remarks that they participate in a spin-off community where priests are married, same-sex marriages are solemnized and women are ordained.  In other words, theirs is a faith community which claims a false Catholic pedigree and lives a lie— women playing priests, defrocked clergy feigning legitimacy without faculties, and blessing what God has deemed as perversion.  This is his ideal for the Church, even though he has personally stopped believing.  Note how quickly the spurning of the Church’s authority leads not only to violations of discipline but also to heretical teachings and practices.

Keller categorizes faithful Catholic priests as lonely men.  Certainly the celibate must be comfortable with “aloneness,” but this is not the same as loneliness.  Married men and women are not exempt from sometimes feeling lonely.  Such feelings are part of the human condition.  The Hydars recognize that change will not come in time for them.  However, I would argue that the types of change they anticipate will never occur.  The Church will never rewrite the moral code.  Such subjectivism flies into the face of divine sovereignty.  Further, their ecclesiology is not one of humility or dialogue but of arrogance and intimidation.  They and their associates mold themselves into their own magisterium, albeit without any protection from the Holy Spirit.  Roberta employs the jargon-expression that exposes their hypocrisy.  She says that “there is no stopping Her by the institutional church.”  One can make distinctions, but there is no real division between the Church as an institution and as a community of saving fellowship.  The Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, men and women religious and the laity are all part of a single pie.  It cannot be sliced or diced.  There is no dissection.  Separated from Peter or the Pope and we have no Church.  The true “sensus fidelium” is not found in dissenters but rather in the men and women who give religious assent and filial obedience.

Despite words and symbolic gestures, the writer is not optimistic that Pope Francis will bring about substantial changes.  Given that he means a reversal to Church stances, I think he is correct.  Ultimately the progressive voices will be disappointed.  Artificial contraception, homosexual relations and priestesses will never find acceptance in the Church of Christ.  That is not to say that they will fail in finding a home somewhere else.  There are plenty of faith institutions founded by men and swayed by the fads of the day.

But next Keller hits the nail on the head when he states that celibacy is a separate case.  As a discipline this could be changed.  It may not be retroactive and these men would still have to profess an orthodox faith.  That would exclude many of the dissenters; but, they still have the freedom to jump ship for the passing raft of Anglicanism.

He speaks about the urgency to change the discipline without any appeal to the supernatural.  Rather, he references that mandatory celibacy is driving away good prospects, that the shortage is immediate and dire, that we need clergy with firsthand experience with family issues, and that we must counteract the clericalism that has enabled and sought to cover-up pedophilia.  After colluding with an ex-nun and an ex-priest, Keller next quotes Thomas Groome, another former priest, who observes that celibate priests are viewed by most people as “peculiar” and “not to be trusted.”  He says that of the hundreds of priests he has known; only three or four have lived a rich and “life-giving” celibacy.  Of course, the problem may have been that as an unhappy priest, himself, he hanged around with other discontents.  Most priests I know are happy and faithful to their promises.  This article is biased or tilted against orthodoxy from the very beginning.

Keller then tells us that celibacy is not a doctrine (true) but blasts it instead as “a cultural and historical aberration.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Historical studies reveal that many early priests lived in perfect continence with their wives.  The periodic celibacy of the Jewish priests became perpetual for Catholic priests.  Except for the national churches of the East, celibacy quickly became the ideal in the West.  We see decree after decree in its favor reaching a climax with the First Lateran Council (1123 AD).  Priestly celibacy was no oddity but the norm and a signature element in priestly character or identity.  It signified total dedication to God and to his Church.  His very flesh became an eschatological sign.  Celibacy was not a refusal to love but a more expansive way of loving, close to the heart and witness of Christ.  The aberration was the married priest, but without any negative judgment against the validity of his share in holy orders.  The crimes and scandals of our times are not due to celibacy but rather to a refusal to be faithful to this solemn promise or vow.  The charge that celibacy was instituted simply to safeguard Church properties against children and inheritance is a slur with only isolated substance.  The resources of the Church had to be protected, for sure, but the greater possession of the Church was the priest, himself.  Why demand celibacy only to those men who would be candidates for the episcopacy?  Roman Catholicism requires and both God and his people deserve such a single-hearted loving from all priests.

Keller says that the Church looks the other way in regard to priests who attempt marriage in parts of Africa and Latin America.  I cannot say for sure if there is a hesitance to censure these reprobates; but regardless, they are not free to marry and they place both themselves and their love-interests in mortal sin.  Why should we reward rebellion and sin?  The truth and objective morality is not open to the democratic process or human capriciousness.  This is not dissimilar from the “everyone’s doing it” argument that we so often hear in regard to fornication, cohabitation and artificial contraception.  It has also been employed in regard to self-destructive behaviors like drug use.  It is the poorest possible argument.  Indeed, it is no argument at all.

Archbishop Pietro Parolin could certainly state that priestly celibacy would be open for discussion; however, this should not imply that any change is in the offering.  Indeed, I would not be surprised if there is a tightening regarding future Catholic Anglican-use priests (particularly sons of the current married clergy) and a reiteration that the Catholic Eastern rites should not ordain married men for priestly service in this hemisphere.  Pope Francis is all about poverty; celibacy more than any other trait points to the rich man who was asked to put aside everything to follow Jesus.  Like the apostles, we leave everything and everyone else behind.  This mandated a special suffering for the married apostles.  In light of Christ’s example and the preference of St. Paul, the Church would spare its priests from struggling with divided loyalties and hearts.  It is sufficient that we have many married deacons.  There is no need to open the priesthood to married men. It is a fallacious assertion that it will turn around the shortage in vocations.  Many Protestant communities have married clergy and they also suffer from a lack of good vocations.  Married ministers have also not preserved them from scandals.

Keller returns to his dissenting couple and John (the ex-priest) says that most of those who left ministry would have stayed if celibacy had been made optional.  However, even in the Eastern model, men are married before ordination, not afterwards.  Had it been permitted, he and the thousands who left with him could still not get married and continue to serve as priests.  Note that the married Episcopalian priests who become Catholic clergy are ordained “absolutely” because Anglican orders are neither accepted by Catholicism as valid nor licit.  Priests who promised celibacy would be expected to keep their promises; just as married men would be required to keep their nuptial vows as they entered holy orders.  It would not be retroactive.  Another wrinkle in John Hydar’s contention is that a majority of those priests who left ministry for marriage have since divorced and many are remarried.  Why should we think that men who cavalierly break one promise will keep another?  In any case, John and many like him also espouse a false ecclesiology where legitimate authority is undermined.  They campaign for doctrinal heresies like priestesses.  Some of these men who left have seen their wives ordained so that they can feign the sacraments beside them.  There is no way for them to come back.  There is no viable path for them, except after a heartfelt repentance demonstrated by public renunciation of their falsehoods and their counterfeit ministry.  Such might allow them back into the pews but they would never again stand before the altar.  That ship has forever sailed.

Optional celibacy and married priests may become a future eventuality; but I hope not.  The writer laments that Roberta Hydar passed from cancer.  She will never see that day.  We can pray for her soul.  However, I would submit that most of the priests and the women for whom they left are elderly now.  It may be the wisdom of the Church that they pass away and their small pseudo-churches with them before the Church further explores this issue.  If we see optional celibacy, the candidates with be committed and obedient Catholics, homeschoolers, with large families, filled with traditional piety and practicing timeless objective morality.  They will be the right kind of men.  Their wives will accept the headship of their husbands and suffer much in knowing that their husbands belong more to the Church than to them.

The history of celibacy in the Church is no aberration.  Rather, it is a calling intimately connected with the vocation of priesthood.  It is a discipline that has doctrinal implications in the bridal imagery of Christ the groom to his bride the Church.  Every priest at the altar enters into this mystery.  Celibacy best preserves its meaning and realizes it.  Celibacy is not a man-made construct.  As with the transmission of the deposit of faith and the efficacy of the sacraments, the legacy of priestly celibacy represents a significant movement of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.  Christ does not fight his Church.  If a man is truly called, God will give him the gift of celibacy.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Celibacy, Discipleship, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Pope Francis, Priestesses, Priests, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Women Priests | 1 Comment »

Abuse & the Fourth Commandment

Posted on December 4, 2013 by Father Joe

Lynne asked questions about the fourth commandment, honoring your father and mother.  I offered a brief response.

1.  Father, can you kindly explain the fourth commandment in regards to parents who are abusive, not necessarily physically, but mentally or spiritually? 

2. How does one actually honor such parents?

If parents are honored then they must be honorable. No one can be obliged to suffer abuse or to be party to sin. While the commandment urges obedience to parents, it also demands that parents should be moral and nurturing in their relations with offspring.

Originally the commandment was addressed more to adults than to parents. God let his people know that we have obligations to parents as they grow older. Just as they cared for us, we should look to their needs when time and sickness should reduce their resources and abilities.

Mental and spiritual abuse should be regarded seriously, just as we would visible physical abuse. However, parents are within their rights to demand upright moral behavior and proper religious formation of the young. As long as offspring live under the roof of their parents, there is a certain level of subservience to them. That is why adults move out and start their own lives. Similarly, elderly parents who live with their children may have to tolerate how things are done differently in their homes.

 

Filed under: Catholic, Commandments, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Morality, Religion | 6 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »