• 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

    Barbara King's avatarBarbara King on Ask a Priest
    Ben Kirk's avatarBen Kirk on Ask a Priest
    Jeremy Kok's avatarJeremy Kok on Ask a Priest
    Barbara's avatarBarbara on Ask a Priest
    forsamuraimarket's avatarforsamuraimarket on Ask a Priest

A Conversation about Medjugorje

This post is the result of an extended online conversation and debate about various elements in the Medjugorje phenomenon. The focus is very narrow. The discussion increasingly centered upon the conduct of the Franciscan priests involved and the Church’s authority over both the clergy and the validation of purported supernatural intervention. The messages themselves are not really analyzed and the visionaries are not detailed.

JEFF:

Father, I’m suspicious of anyone who has any association with the evil fraud known as “Medjugorje.” IMO, we have yet to see the full negative effects of this sad charade.

FATHER JOE:

I have always done my best to reserve judgment on Medjugorje but have long had serious reservations.

The messages themselves have been repetitive but sometimes problematical. Of course, there was often the possibility of translation errors. I was troubled by such things as the approval of a Franciscan priest as saintly and good who later married and abandoned his ministry and by religious indifferentism, as when Mary purportedly said the holiest woman of the village was an elderly Moslem lady. The real Mary would certainly know the state of the priest’s soul and would not so quickly discount the value of faith in her Son and the grace that God grants the saintly. My other concern is the length of the apparitions and how they continue. The apparitions are haphazard and no longer strictly localized.  Religious vocations failed to materialize.  The principal visionary had a serious brain tumor raising the logical possibility of hallucinations. An indeterminate number have purported inner locutions. Might the apparitions have started out as genuine and then stopped, leaving the visionaries uncertain as to what to do next? Could there be demonic deception? Where is the permanent sign that Mary promised there? And yet the local fruits (as with people returning to the faith) seem positive.  Given the local bishop’s opposition to the purported apparitions, or at least to the pilgrims, I have never gone there. I saw one video that upset me. It showed the priests hearing confessions outside. This practice is okay by me, but it should not be recorded. Even with the sound inaudible, it violates confidentiality and given lip-readers, breeches the sacramental seal. This is quite serious.

However, while I give voice to my concerns, I just do not know. It is all private revelation if genuine, and thus is not necessary for salvation. I have known people moved and brought back to faith by it. I have also met people more fascinated by rosaries that changed colors than by the need to reconcile the messages with Catholic teaching.

GIO:

Isn’t Medjugorje in Russia? Marian apparitions only happen to Catholics; if it was really her, as in Fatima, she would make it known that it was her.

FATHER JOE:

When they started it was Yugoslavia and the nation was still run by the Communists.

GIO:

If Mary purported said that the most holy woman was a Muslim then Mary didn’t appear there.  Muslims deny that Christ is the Son of God.  They think he was just a Prophet.  They trump the fake prophet Muhammad over Jesus, Lord God.  This means that the apparitions are a lie or by the devil. St. Pio had apparitions like this; they were fake apparitions of the Lord, Mary and of his spiritual director.

ANITA MOORE, OPL:

I have always been skeptical of Medjugorje and think the opinion of the local ordinary ought to be given more weight than it has been given by some: as the man on the ground, he’s surely in the best position to know.

In my opinion, the good fruits do not weigh in favor of the genuineness of the apparitions. I think it more likely that the credit for the good fruits should go to the Sacraments.

My understanding is that a formal investigation of an apparition does not usually begin until after it has ended. If they are fraudulent, then this would provide a motive for the “seers” to spin them out for as long as humanly possible.

JEFF:

It is up to the local ordinary to rule on the validity of apparitions. The local ordinary’s ruling over the parish in question has definitively ruled against it, and in fact, the Church forbids formal pilgrimages to the place:

His Eminence Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, President of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, and H.E. Most Rev. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar-Duvno forbid organized pilgrimages (1987).

Pavao Zanic, Bishop forbids visiting priests from saying Mass (1987).

Bishop Zanic gives reasons for denial of supernatural at Medjugorje (1990).

Negative verdict from the Yugoslavia Bishops’ Conference (1990).

Bishop Peric also insists that the Medjugorje apparitions are not authentic (1997).

Bishop Peric’s repeats negative stance against Medjugorje (2009).

ANNE:

Dear fellow Catholics, Pope John Paul II said if he could go to Medjugorje he would. I have been there twice. Both times I have been touched by Mary’s presence. If you have not yet gone, please reserve your opinions.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, one does not have to go to Medjugorje for an opinion. Part of the discernment process involves the reputation of the visionaries, the various clergy involved (the legitimate bishop’s verdict and the tension between the secular and religious clergy), the possible fruit of the proposed apparitions, and an analysis of the doctrinal content in the messages themselves. One may very well have a positive personal experience; however, the Church’s ultimate verdict will be not be based upon this subjective element.

ANNE:

As I understand it, the “Church” has not forbidden anyone from going there.

FATHER JOE:

The Church is not in the business of telling the laity what churches they can and cannot visit. Church officials can ask obedient priests not to encourage a fascination with certain private revelations or to lead pilgrimages to certain sites.

ANNE:

As for declaring it a “holy place,” they cannot until Mary ends her visits. The visionaries still receive her visits.  When it is time, she will allow them to tell the messages.

FATHER JOE:

I have a whole book of the messages. The problem is not secret messages but some of the things said in the ones made public. However, there is the possibility of translation errors. I take it that Our Lady is apparently speaking in Croatian? We must be humble enough to allow that the universal Church might give the local bishop the last word, even if it is a negative one. While it is possible that a positive verdict could be granted in the future, the longer the messages continue, the less likely this becomes. They are also no longer strictly located in one place.

ANNE:

The Devil never stops trying to reduce our Blessed Mother to nothing. Say the Rosary often and remember to pray for each other.

FATHER JOE:

I am not sure about Medjugorje, but one can still love Mary and say the rosary. Peace!

SUSAN:

My sister and my friend have both visited Medjugorje. They witnessed a healing and a conversion to Catholicism. They were dumbfounded at how untouched the city was by the war. I believe we need to pray the rosary every day. I am not sure about Medjugorje, but from what I have heard and witnessed, it has been good. I do think if we pray the rosary we can experience the peace of Mary without having to travel halfway around the world.

WI CATHOLIC:

As for Medjugorje, I have not been comfortable for many years with the repetition of the messages and apparent disobedience of some of the well known people involved, etc. While some have said “NO vocations have come out of this,” I have reminded them that Marriage is a vocation, as is Single Life. I am glad that you specified no RELIGIOUS vocations have resulted, for that is true, and is also a smaller concern of mine.

PJ:

For Anne Gilmartin—

“I can only say that the statements on Medjugorje that have been attributed to the Holy Father (John Paul II) and to me have been made up out of thin air” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI], interview in Der Speigel magazine, July 22, 1998.

For everyone who “feels” the alleged apparitions are true and don’t promote indifference or heresy:

“How wonderful it was to see those of the Jewish faith come to Medjugorje. Some would convert to Christianity; others would return home more devout in their Jewish faith. The same was true of many nonbelievers, Muslims and Protestants.” (The Final Harvest by Wayne Weible, page 121).

These are the words of Weible himself – probably the most prominent promoter of Medjugorje in the U.S. His take-it-or-leave-it attitude about the Catholic Faith is dumbfounding!  He gleefully declares how “wonderful it is” to see THE [alleged] BLESSED MOTHER SENDING PEOPLE HOME MORE DEVOUT IN THEIR REJECTION OF HER SON CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH!

OH PLEASE! WAKE UP PEOPLE! If it’s not promoting Catholicism – just Catholicism and ONLY Catholicism – it is not Our Lady and it definitely is NOT Catholic! 95% okay is not good enough! It is either 100% Catholic or it is not Catholic at all— period. Therefore it’s not worthy of belief!

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel…there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (1 Gal. 1:6-8.)

SEAN:

Regarding Medjugorje – I have been there numerous times over the years. I have read numerous responses here complaining of the repetitive nature of the messages. We must not forget that Our Blessed Mother is just that…OUR MOTHER! And like any mother telling her children how to be safe and act correctly…she has to repeat this to her children. I often find myself saying to my own children “…how many times must I tell you….”  Yes, the visions of Our Blessed Mother are repetitive. You could say the same for the Gospel readings at Mass. Should we stop going to Mass because the readings repeat themselves after a while?  I believe not.

The Vatican allows people to go to Medjugorje (it does not encourage it but it neither discourages). The official stance resulting from the Zadar declaration of 1991 (Yugoslav bishops re Medjugorje) is that … “it has not yet been established that anything supernatural has taken place there.” Remember, it says not yet. When I first went to Medjugorje in 1987, I found a lot of people were over-emphasizing the importance of the apparitions, signs and chastisements. I have found that over the years the priests and visionaries seem to be speaking less and less of this and more on the importance of the sacraments. This disappointed many of the pilgrims from the early years as they were expecting some imminent sign or worldwide calamity (most probably before 2000, though timeframes were never implied by the visionaries).

I believe the visions to be worthy of belief. After all, if they were demonic then it was indeed a huge “own goal” on the part of demonic forces. If the messages are manmade then I would have thought the messages could be made juicier to appeal to the human desire for new information. But no, the messages are simple and clear.

It should be noted that the ONLY messages that are considered “official” are the ones given to the visionary Maria on the 25th of each month.

You do not have to go to Medjugorje to feel peace. Peace starts in our hearts (something Our Lady has said). If prayer or messages do not bring you closer to Jesus then I would be worried about that. I think that is why Our Lady’s messages are so clear about the need for prayer from the heart.

Finally, while I do not share Fr. Joe’s skepticism I do welcome his caution regarding Medjugorje. After all he is only being prudent. God Bless you all.

CATHY:

I believed in Mary’s apparitions in Medjugorje from the first time I heard of them from 1986-90.  I visited there three times. I am still a firm believer in the apparitions and am a better person and better Catholic as a result of having believed in the apparitions and the messages. While I am quite aware of the repetition in so many of the messages, I was always aware the repetitions from my biological mother as she tried to teach me.  She repeated over and over the same instructions until I finally ‘got it right’ and/or obeyed her.  I believe that the Blessed Mother teaches and repeats herself as every good mother does.  I appreciate that!

JOE:

I know many people who have visited Medjugorje, and everyone who I have spoken with, has been drawn closer to Christ. In fact, my sister and brother in law have visited four times each, and the change in them was dramatic.

As far as the bishop is concerned, if you read the lives of many saints, it was the bishops and the Vatican who were the thorns in their sides. The human side of the Church is the problem; the divine side is just that.

I cannot believe you would allow someone to accuse St. Pio of having fake apparitions.

FATHER JOE:

No one denies that pilgrims who traveled to Medjugorje have often grown in faith and devotion. Besides the purported apparitions, innerlocutions, and signs, the people have gone to Confession and participated at Mass. The sacraments always nurture faith and grant us grace. The question is whether they were changed by something there that was singularly supernatural or whether it was the faith they brought with them that transformed the experience and gave it heightened meaning.

First, Catholics are not obliged to give personal credence to private revelation and particular apparitions.

Second, all salvation truth and the fullness of revelation that constitutes the deposit of faith conclude with the death of the last apostle, John.

Third, the living Church is composed of both shepherds and flocks who cooperate with each other according to the charisms and roles given by Christ; they do not stand in opposition to each other.

The Vatican (Holy See) and the bishops are not thorns in the side of holy men and women. Indeed, the shepherds of the Church are commanded to exhibit oversight in caring for Christ’s sheep. Many apparitions are judged as not supernatural and are thus false. These are dangerous and can lead God’s people astray. (A case in point was Veronica in Bayside, New York or the events in Garabandal, Spain.) The ultimate verdict about Medjugorje is still out, although the opposition from the local bishop and certain problematical messages will necessarily be considered. Indeed, recriminations against the hierarchy as you propose here will also weigh against it. Protestants might reject the Magisterium, but it is unseemly for those who claim to be faithful Catholics to ridicule it.

The bishops and Holy See rightly tested apparitions like Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima, eventually finding them safe for the faithful. What was done for Juan Diego, St. Bernadette and Sister Lucia should not be short-circuited or dismissed regarding Medjugorje and its visionaries. The bishops and Vatican are not merely the human elements of the Church. The bishops in union with the Pope were established by Peter to guide the Church. As our shepherds, they constitute the living teaching authority which interprets and teaches the deposit of faith. The Holy Spirit watches over them and preserves them in the truth. Only some sort of confused congregationalism would narrowly focus the divine upon the laity or a few pious saints and ignore and deny the Pope, bishops and priests.

This post is not really about Padre Pio.  Padre Pio struggled with just authority but his life was essentially marked by holy obedience, even when it was difficult. As a priest and religious, it was not his place to question his superiors. The stigmata itself does not mean that a man is perfect or all holy. Indeed, his long-suffering with the wounds of Christ might have been the feature that made him the saint that he would become. The revelations or messages received by saints are regarded as personal and may not always be in perfect sync with every article of Church teaching. Saints are holy; they are not always right in their opinions. I have no reason to doubt the supernatural events around Padre Pio; but neither can I fault the Church in being scrutinizing and careful about such things. You should not deride that authority to which the great saint vowed submission of intellect and will.

PATRICK:

I would like to say that I converted back to Catholicism, through Medjugorje. I discovered it on its anniversary (June 24, 1995). I know this, because I took out the book, “Visions of the Children” in a library. After reading this book, I needed more information, because I had a really hard time believing that this was happening. After flying through my fifth book on the place, many coincidences started happening to me, pointing to Medjugorje. There are just too many to mention; but I can say that many of my friends, (that made fun of me for reading these books), are now converted.

I can say that the coincidences in my life that led me towards Medjugorje became really apparent, and it started leading me to confusion. This last (I will say coincidence, but I now realize God just pushed me along, until I listened to him) happened on the way to work. One morning I woke up an hour late and realized that I could be terminated because my record was getting worse and I was extremely worried (for some reason, I just had a hard time getting up for work back then). I decided to just get dressed and go in to see what would happen. On the way into work, I realized that after all those books I read, not once did I think to pray. I was 30 years old and had not prayed since I was 15. I said a prayer and with tears in my eyes, I asked God to forgive me for all my sins. I then asked him to show me one more sign to let me know if Medjugorje came from him and not from the Devil. I begged him not to lead me astray and that if it was from him to show me a sign; I promised him I would go there even during the war.

I arrived at work to find that my Boss just happened to be at the door getting some fresh air. He had a quick talk with me and told me he covered me and to go home and relax, before anyone saw me. I was shocked! I was driving home praising God, not even knowing what was to come. I arrived home around 8:30 AM.  Sitting in my house alone, wondering what I was going to do, one of my good friends, (who actually teased me the most about Medjugorje), happened to take the day off as well. He saw my car and decided to call me to see if I wanted to go fishing with him at the Detroit River. I have never fished there and curiosity made me go.

We arrived at the Detroit River, took out our poles and drinks and sat their fishing while making small talk. I didn’t want to bring up anything about Medjugorje, but decided I should. Of course he didn’t want to listen and scolded me into changing the subject. I ended it by telling him that I prayed for a sign, asking God to show me a sign, just one more coincidence and I was going to go. He thought I was going crazy and kept trying to discourage me. It wasn’t 5 minutes later that it happened and we became quiet. My friend looked up at this huge oil tanker coming down the river and said, Oh My God! Pat, there is your sign! I looked up to see that this ship that was coming down the river was named, “The Bosnia-Herzegovina.” It was the name of the place where Medjugorje was located. I looked at my friend and he was in tears. I was shocked at his reaction, but knew that God was telling me something. This was the last sign God gave me.  I have many stories that took place in such a short time (two months) that I could share, but the last one was the one that made me go.

I can say that Medjugorje is a mystery to us and the Visionaries. The Visionaries don’t even know the extent of Gods plan from this event. If you have never been there, it is an experience you will never forget, a life changing experience! Growing up on the streets of Detroit, I know a B.S.er a mile away. I found these visionaries to be very humble and family oriented. You don’t see them on talk shows or showing pride about who they are. I believe that their sufferings are much worse then we can imagine for what they know. It seems as if their “free will” is gone. I would not want to be them.

I wish the best for everyone who is searching for truth; I will keep you in my prayers always!  God Bless Everyone.

ANNE:

Medjugorje is in fact real, believe it or not.  I find your blog very disrespectful to Mary (the Mother of GOD) and to those who have been there and part of the apparitions.

FATHER JOE:

There is nothing here disrespectful of our Blessed Mother and to authentic apparitions.

ANNIE:

If you don’t believe in it so be it but I myself am one of the many who found joy in returning to active participation in Church activities.

FATHER JOE:

That is good for you, but what right does this give you to challenge a priest in good standing with the Church?

ANNIE:

I also gave a Nun her Rosaries back, after they had changed from aluminum to GOLD. This can be a game from the Devil but I doubt it.

FATHER JOE:

My faith is based upon more than rosaries that change color.

ANNIE:

Why don’t you all have a little FAITH?

FATHER JOE:

I believe in a great deal… the CREED… the CATECHISM… the SCRIPTURES… the Eucharist… the POPE.

ANNIE:

Mary is real and you all should look into all the mysterious things that have happened since the Apparitions.

FATHER JOE:

Of course Mary is real. As for apparitions, I would especially recommend Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe.

ANNIE:

Also, before you claim that you doubt any of this, look up a map and find out where exactly Medjugorje is. Then, find out about Fr. Jozo, a priest who like yourself did not believe until Mary (the Mother of GOD) came to him while he suffered in prison. There are many good stories. Just have FAITH— prayers to all.

FATHER JOE:

Ah, you are pushing Medjugorje. The verdict is still out on that one and the local bishop has claimed that nothing supernatural happened. There are problems that sensible Catholics must admit. But I have not yet made up my mind. Father Jozo was suspended as a priest for disobedience although the Franciscans gave him safe harbor from the local bishop. There are also public allegations of sexual offenses with women. Father Ken Roberts was suspended for child molestation. The news gets worse and worse. Have you heard about Father Vlasic?

IRISH EXAMINER (September 9, 2008):

Pope orders disciplinary measures on priest over sex scandal

ALL hell is breaking loose in Medjugorje following the Pope’s crackdown on the world’s largest illicit Catholic shrine.

Pope Benedict XVI has authorized severe cautionary and disciplinary measures against Fr Tomislav Vlasic, the former spiritual director to six children who said Our Lady was appearing to them at the site in Bosnia.

The Franciscan priest was suspended after he refused to co-operate with a Vatican probe of scandalous sexual immorality “aggravated by mystical motivations.”

Fr Vlasic, who fathered a child with a nun, was a central figure in promoting the apparitions that allegedly began in 1981 and continue to this day. The seers say they have seen Our Lady more than 40,000 times in the past 27 years.

Three Church commissions failed to support the claims and the bishops of the former Yugoslavia declared in 1991 that “it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.”

In a statement posted on the website of the diocese which includes Medjugorje, Bishop Ratko Peric explained that Fr Vlasic was being investigated “for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspicious mysticism, disobedience toward legitimately issued orders” and charges that he violated the sixth commandment.

In 1985 the Pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, banned official, diocesan or parish-sponsored pilgrimages to the shrine.

Fr. Vlasic is the second spiritual adviser to the visionaries to be suspended from ministry. Similar action was taken against Fr Jozo Zovko in 2004. Fr Vlasic has been confined to a monastery in Italy and banned from contact with the Queen of Peace community he founded, or with his lawyers without permission.

He is also banned from making public appearances, preaching and hearing confessions, and will be required to make a solemn profession of the Catholic faith.

The Vatican has warned the priest he will be excommunicated if he violates any of the prohibitions.

In 1984 he wrote to Pope John Paul II to say that he was the one “who through divine providence guides the seers of Medjugorje.”

Four years later, when it was revealed he had fathered a child, he moved to Parma where he set up the Queen of Peace community which is dedicated to the Medjugorje apparitions.

FATHER JOE:

The Canonical status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, OFM
The Bishop, 2008-08-31

The CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH with its letter prot. 144/1985-27164 of 30 May 2008, has authorized me as the local Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno to inform the diocesan community of the canonical status of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, the founder of the association “Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu” – (Queen of Peace, totally Yours – Through Mary to Jesus).

The letter signed by the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, states the following:

“Within the context of the phenomenon Medjugorje, this Dicastery is studying the case of Father Tomislav VLASIC OFM, originally from that region and the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu.’”

On 25 January 2008, through a properly issued Decree, this Dicastery imposed severe cautionary and disciplinary measures on Fr. Vlasic.

The non-groundless news that reached this Congregation reveals that the religious priest in question did not respond, even partially, to the demands of ecclesiastical obedience required by the very delicate situation he finds himself in, justifying himself by citing his zealous activity in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and surrounding territories, in initiating religious activities, buildings, etc.

Since Fr. Vlasic has fallen into a censure of interdict latae sententiae reserved to this Dicastery, I kindly ask Your Excellency, for the good of the faithful, to inform the community of the canonical status of Fr. Vlasic and at the same time to report on the situation in question….”

*****

This regards the fact that the same Congregation of the Holy See applied ecclesiastical sanctions against Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, through a Decree of the Congregation (prot. 144/1985) of 25 January 2008, signed by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect, and by Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation along with the “Concordat cum originali” of 30 January 2008, verified by Msgr. John Kennedy, Official of the Congregation.

The Decree was handed over to Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić in the General Curia of the OFM in Rome on 16 February 2008 and the notification was co-signed by the Minister General of the Franciscan Minor Order, Father José R. Carballo, the Ordinary of Fr. Vlašić.

The Decree of the Congregation mentions that Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, a cleric of the Franciscan Minor Order – the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’ and who is involved in the “phenomenon Medjugorje” – has been reported to the Congregation “for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism, disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum.”

“Having studied the case, the Congregation during its special Congress decreed the following sanctions against Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlasic:

1. Mandatory residence in one of the houses of the Order in the region of Lombardy (Italy) to be determined by the Minister General of the Order and to be realized within thirty days from the time of the legitimate notification of this decree;

2. All contacts with the ‘Kraljice Mira…’ community and with its members are prohibited;

3. Any actions involving juridical contracts and administrative organizations, whether canonical or civil, effected without the written permission ad actum of the Minister General of the Order and under his responsibility are prohibited;

4. A mandatory course of theological-spiritual formation, with a final evaluation along with a prior recognitio of this Congregation, and a solemn professio fidei;

5. The following are also prohibited: activities involving the ‘care of souls’, preaching, public appearances, while the faculty to hear confessions is also revoked up until the conclusion of the terms described in the previous number, barring an evaluation of the case.

An additional sanction of a latae sententiae interdict (can. 1332) reserved to the Apostolic See is adjoined in the case of the violation of the mandatory residence (n. 1) and the other prohibited acts mentioned in n. 3 and n. 5.

Fr. Vlasic is forewarned that in the case of stubbornness a juridical penal process will begin with the aim of still harsher sanctions, not excluding dismissal, having in mind the suspicion of heresy and schism, as well as scandalous acts contra sextum, aggravated by mystical motivations.

Fr. Vlasic remains under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister General of the Order of Minor Franciscans, who shall see to his vigilance through the local Superior or another Delegate.”

ANNE:

Dear Fr. Joe, I have read your blog and ask you, Isn’t it just a little strange that the very priests who are so heavy into Medjugorje are the very ones (according to everyone) who have SINNED BIGTIME? Well I do! Do you all really believe that the DEVIL is going to stand still and allow the BVM to have all these people saved? Nonsense! He is going to battle her as she is according to our faith and the Bible— that she will crush his head. Remember?

I’m sorry if I irritate some but I have a very strong faith in our Mother, and I believe in her visitations in Bosnia-Herzogovina. The way I initially went was also irregular. I had a friend who went and who wanted me to go. I could not get her to understand I couldn’t afford it. So I told her to tell the BVM if she wanted me to go there, she (Mary) had better get me the money. After I hung up the phone I apologized to Mary for being fresh, as she understood what a pickle I was in. I was in Medjugorje on June 24, 1988 (two months later). Tell me that wasn’t weird. As I told you the place is a land of PEACE. I had dreams of going back and I did in 1999. Before and after I have been ill; realize I am praying as well.  Keep the Faith and continue praying the Rosary.

SEAN:

As for Medjugorje, I am a believer in the apparitions. I have been to Medjugorje many times over the last 20 years. In the early years of going there on pilgrimage I must admit I was caught up in the supernatural aspect of the place and the celebrity status of the visionaries. I found this initially strengthened my faith but did not last. It was only later on that I started to actually listen to the messages from Our Lady, which did not differ at all from the Gospels. None of the official messages (mainly given on 25th of the month) have been in contradiction to the Gospels. I know people have questions and problems with some other comments attributed to Our Lady, such as references to other faiths. Some of these are taken out of context. Most people’s misgivings in relation to this area are based on pre-Vatican II teachings, such as salvation not been attainable outside of the Catholic Church. I am not for one second implying that all faiths are the same.

There is also a lot of inaccurate information regarding Medjugorje in relation to some of the priests. Firstly, Fr. Jozo was never guilty of misconduct towards women. It was alleged but never proven after investigation. Fr. Vlasij never fathered a child with a nun. This was a Fr. Ivica Vego who was working in Medjugorje in a gift shop with the nun in question. At the time he was suspended from duties by the bishop of Mostar and was never carrying out pastoral work or saying Mass publicly. However, it is nonetheless a sad story but should not be mixed up with Fr. Vlisij.

Fr. Vlasic was never a spiritual director to the visionaries though he did claim to be so himself. He has not worked in Medjugorje in over 15 years. He set up a community in Italy which is in no way affiliated with Medjugorje. The shrine of Medjugorje cannot control how other people promote Medjugorje or how they interpret the messages from Our Lady. It was Fr. Vlasij actions and teachings that has got him into trouble with the Vatican. Unfortunately but not surprisingly the media have tried to imply that this is linked to Medjugorje in some way.

FATHER JOE:  (Corrections)

The Facts about Ivica Vego

Mr. Vego was once Fr. Vego.  He was dispensed from his vows and expelled from the Franciscans back in the 1990’s.  His removal was by direct order of Pope John Paul II.  There is no questioning the truth of the charges.  His immoral actions included a sexual relationship with Sister Leopolda and her impregnation.  They both left religious life and moved in together and continued to enlarge their number of offspring.  Prior to his removal, he fought his expulsion and administered the sacraments without faculties to do so.

The Facts about Tomislav Vlasic

The former spiritual director and pastor to the parish of the visionaries is now an ex-Franciscan Catholic priest.  A few years prior to coming to Medjugorje, he impregnated Franciscan Sister Rufina and had her sent to Germany in 1976 with the false promise of joining her.  Their correspondence was provided to the Holy See as evidence of his disobedience.  Heavily involved with the Charismatic renewal, he presumed that the Virgin Mary had chosen him to be the leader of a new movement.  His preaching and teaching became increasingly suspect.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2008 informed him that he was under formal investigation for spreading “dubious doctrine,” “manipulation of consciences,” “suspected false mysticism,” disobedience to legitimate authority and charges of “contra sextum” or fornication.  He was laicized in 2009.  If he tried to continue with any ministry in the Church he was told that he would be excommunicated.  He has since left the Church anyway for a New Age cult centered on distorted Catholic doctrine, private revelation (Medjugorje), pseudo-science and astrology.

The Facts about Fr. Jozo Zovco, OFM

Of the three priests often associated with Medjugorje, Fr. Zovco is the only one who still functions, albeit in a truncated fashion, as a priest.  Originally sceptical, he protected the visionaries and was imprisoned by the Communist authorities.  His story should be the most inspiring; however, subsequent events have also tarnished his witness.  Various women charged him with sexual misconduct.  Of course, charges are not proof and he may be innocent.  The bishop suspended him in 1989.  He appealed to Rome which reaffirmed his suspension and ordered his seclusion to a distant monastic setting.  He refused (1990).  Despite having his faculties removed, he disobediently continued to offer the sacraments.  The next bishop reaffirmed the suspension and Rome notified the Franciscans that his faculties and now that of three additional priests had been removed.  Any Mass that a suspended priest offered was illicit.  Any marriage they witnessed was null-and-void.  The Franciscan Providence continued to fight with the bishop and even made Fr. Zovco the administrator (pastor by another name) in Siroki Brijeg.  Another notice of suspension was sent (1994) but was again ignored.  He offered Mass, heard Confessions and gave retreats.  He went on a world tour giving talks and retreats, even scheduling a visit to the United States.  Scandal and protests erupted in 2002 when his participation was cancelled (two days before the event) at the Marian Mass and prayer vigil scheduled at the Basilica of the National Shrine in Washington, DC.  The Archdiocese was notified that Fr. Zovko had no faculties to publicly function as a priest and that he was under ecclesial censure.  Canon Law made his involvement impossible.  Bishop Peric would suspend him a third time in 2004 in response to his persistent disobedience.  The bishop called him for a meeting so that his status might be regularized.  He spurned the piles of testimony against him and the record of his insubordination.  He refused any compromise or reconciliation.  Rome initiated a new investigation (2009) and he was ordered confined to a convent far from Medjugorje; supporters were informed that this was “against his own will.”  Finally, the Franciscans gave in and stopped protecting him.   

SEAN:

Imagine if you will the following headlines from 2000 years ago:  “Main Follower of Jesus Denied Knowing Him,” “Internal Disagreements between Jesus’ Disciples,” “Jesus’ Followers Nowhere to be seen during Trial.”

FATHER JOE:

You would compare reprobates to Jesus and the Apostles?

SEAN:

My point is that even those close to Jesus had failings and disagreements. My point is that people will believe what they want to believe. This is not helped by inaccurate reporting by the media.

FATHER JOE: 

But your facts are inaccurate, too.  Further, the challenge is not coming from the media but people of faith who love the Church.

SEAN:

I do not believe that you or your blog is anti-Medjugorje or disrespectful to Our Lady. As Catholics we are not required to believe in apparitions. However, many of us do.  Many of us believe the Mother of God to be appearing in Medjugorje. Personally I have found Medjugorje to have strengthened my faith. It is easy when in Medjugorje to be prayerful. It is harder when you come home. That is why we are always encouraged by the visionaries and priests in Medjugorje to pray the Rosary, read Scripture and attend Mass. There is nothing new in this requirement.

I agree with Fr. Joe when he says that you don’t have to go to Medjugorje to have an opinion on it. I would suggest he does not rule out going there at some stage. If he feels that he does not need to or want to go then I am okay with that. I enjoy reading this blog and thank Fr. Joe for setting it up. Peace to all of you and God Bless.

LADY GODLESS:

Sean O’Shaughnessy said, “As for Medjugorje, I am a believer in the apparitions. I have been to Medjugorje many times over the last 20 years.”

Sean, if I may ask… Did any of these apparitions occur while you were there? Did you see them or hear them? What were they like?

SEAN:

To Lady Godless—

In response to your comments, no I have not seen Our Lady. Science cannot prove or disprove that the visionaries are seeing anything. I accept that. Countless tests have been carried out on the visionaries by scientists, doctors and psychiatrists from all over the world. Some of these were atheists, agnostics and non-Christians.

Psychiatric tests have shown that the visionaries are not delusional. The scientific tests i.e., brainwaves, pupil dilation tests have shown that as far as the visionaries brains are concerned…they are seeing something. Neither Science nor faith can prove what exactly they are seeing.

I simply say that I find the visionaries testimony worthy of belief when I say I believe them. Do I belief them 100%? I would be foolish to say yes because I have not seen with my own eyes. My faith is not based on visionaries and mystics. It is on the Gospels.

The fruits of Medjugorje are positive. Millions have returned to their faith and a deeper relationship with God.

One of my best friends is an atheist and nothing anyone says will convince him that God exists. On the other hand nothing atheists will say to believers will convince them that God does not exist.

It is good that people question faith, apparitions, etc. Humans are programmed to question who we are and what we are doing here. There comes a point when you make a decision to accept, not accept or remain indifferent. I have accepted.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, weak believers can be swayed by atheists and certain atheists may come to believe on account of rational arguments, often based on philosophy and elements of science. Faith is a gift from God, but it does not have to be blind faith. Unlike certain forms of Protestant fundamentalism, Catholics stress faith seeking understanding. We do not “believe” in spite of reason. Scientific discoveries are not false trails established by the devil but are rather the fingerprints of the Creator. As Christians we need a sober respect for all truth and a healthy appreciation of the divine mystery.

MICHAEL:

Sean and Lady Godless, I had a friend who visited Medjugorje. He was also very weak in his faith until he witnessed the cross beam on a concrete crucifix move up and down on its concrete post while there. This is a true story. Think of all of the conversions that took place without anyone experiencing any physical manifestations. Happy are we who believe without seeing.

SEAN:

Fr. Joe, you are correct in your response to my comments. People can certainly change their minds on reflection and in the presence of certain information. I am sincere in my expression of appreciation for your clarification and wisdom. May God bless you and your pastoral work for His Glory.

FATHER JOE:

I did not intend to detract from your words, just to amplify them with a few more details. Peace!

SHANNON:

Father Joe, your reasoning is unbelievably dumb. The Muslim lady is holy. God judges us by what we know and not on whether we are Catholic or not.

FATHER JOE:

Then you would favor the heresy of religious relativism. I do not. Further, salvation is not something we can merit apart from Christ. We cannot save ourselves. We are not saved simply because we exhibit good behavior. In any case, even if God has a place in heaven for the old Moslem woman, no doubt because of her ignorance of Christ as God and Savior, this does not mean that she would possess more grace than a faithful Christian believer.

SHANNON:

“Where is the permanent sign that Mary promised there?” Oh you want your chastisement NOW it appears. Ever heard of mercy? Isn’t that what Mary has been saying, that she is holding back the arm of her son? You are completely ignorant. I didn’t say stupid here just ignorant.

FATHER JOE:

You are now mixing your private revelations. The so-called permanent sign and the proposed chastisement are not the same thing. If I am ignorant then I suppose you would similarly condemn the local bishop, too. Marian apparitions are supposed to build unity in the Church, not cause ridicule of her priests and disdain for her bishops.

SHANNON:

You should stop making any comments about Medjugorje because you haven’t taken the time to discern it.

FATHER JOE:

Evidently, you would silence me in regard to Catholic teaching as well. In any case, I have made no final or absolute verdict against Medjugorje. Is it the fear of a negative verdict that upsets you or is it that a few of the pro-Medjugorje priests were found to be unworthy of trust and scandalous in their personal behavior? Would you listen to bad rogue priests before giving respect and a listening ear to priests who keep their promises?

SHANNON: 

It probably takes more time than you have but please just be quiet and say you don’t now and stop giving stupid reasons why it MAY be false like some of these other people.

FATHER JOE:

I will not stop “reasoning” for you or anyone. We must be critical of matters like Medjugorje. That is the way the Church deals with such things. It would be “stupid” and “dumb” just to accept apparitions at face value. You must be humble enough to accept whatever the Church decides. Your current attitude is not from God or reflective of how Our Lady would have you talk to me.

SHANNON:

I know Mary isn’t happy with my scolding of you but I am sick of stupid reasons.

FATHER JOE:

You have said it yourself, Mary is not happy with you. Forget the rest, it is that which should make you go to Confession and move you to accept what the Church ultimately says about Medjugorje. Even if certain purported supernatural elements are not given approbation; that does not in any way subtract from the authenticity of faith which so many pilgrims brought to Medjugorje. The verdict against Garabandal Spain was negative, and yet the faith grows there even despite false apparitions and inner locutions.

SHANNON:

I am also worried about the loss of information that the school of Mary imparts and the possible loss of souls to Hell because they don’t follow her advice. Why?  It is because they aren’t sure or they are waiting for the Church to make a ruling. So they die and are judged because the messages are going on for 28 years and thanks be to God may go on for another long period while we get our act together to meet Jesus. Ignoring the messages is Satan’s joy.

FATHER JOE:

But, we must make sure that it is really Mary speaking. It would be foolish or “ignorant” to be presumptive about this fact in Medjugorje. Satan can also pretend to be an angel of light. Private revelation cannot displace the public revelation which ended with the death of the last apostle, John. The Church does not require her children to believe in apparitions and private revelation. She does have the authority to judge as to whether such things are in accordance with the deposit of faith or in opposition. I have only echoed the voices of people higher up in the Church. These men are part of the Magisterium, protected by the Holy Spirit. You and I, apart from their guidance, are not so safeguarded. One does not have to believe in private revelation to be a good Catholic or to know salvation.

SHANNON:

I absolutely KNOW it is real. This is a gift to me like the gift of Faith in God. I get really tired of hearing stupid reasons why people don’t believe. Bishop Zanic got his ego involved. Pope John Paul overrode his opinion more than once. That was never done before where a Pope overrode the local Bishop. I trust Pope John Paul over Zanic.

FATHER JOE:

Pope John Paul never gave a final verdict to Medjugorje. Pope Benedict XVI remarked than many attributions to the late Pope in favor of the apparitions are fiction.  He deferred to the local bishop; however, he did ask that the diocese make provision to assist pilgrims with the sacraments. The Pope himself did not go to Medjugorje. It is not your place to second-guess a bishop. Neither was it the place of the Franciscans. If you place your personal faith in this apparition ahead of any allegiance to the Church and her teachings then you are falling into a type of “private faith” as espoused by certain Protestant denominations. This is further evidence that the fruits of Medjugorje are not everything they should be.

SHANNON: 

He saved Faustina’s reputation because he was a great Pope who didn’t listen to stupidity but made them examine it thoroughly. Satan is involved and doing all he can to mess up the work of Mary to save us from Hell.

FATHER JOE:

Are you calling Pope Pius XII stupid for his caution? Are you saying that the Church’s reluctance to promulgate the Divine Mercy was Satanic? The late Pope John Paul II only said that the time of deliberation was over. He never chastised the Church or the previous Pope as you seem to do.

SHANNON:

“…principal visionary had a serious brain tumor. ”

Since you haven’t spent the time to know what you are talking about you should know this was at the request of Mary that she suffer for a cause. Vicka immediately said YES but Mary said to pray for 3 days before deciding. She was also cured at a date she (Vicka) put in an envelope to prove it was from Mary. You obviously don’t know that.

FATHER JOE:

You have only her word I suppose for the tumor and cure? Again, I am not saying that Mary did not speak to the young woman; however, I would never place blind faith in an apparition like Medjugorje. I believe in the Catholic Church and everything she teaches to be true. That is enough for me.

SHANNON:

You are incredibly ignorant about Medjugorje so you should just be quiet and stop dissuading people from listening to Mary.

FATHER JOE:

I have a whole library about Medjugorje. I have read the messages from the very beginning. I have noted the purported supernatural events. Yes, I am not convinced. But I am not ignorant.

SHANNON:

It is real.

FATHER JOE:

It is your choice to regard it as such. I am not so sure. You have no authority and no right to compel others to accept it.

SHANNON:

You either need to spend more time on it or keep quiet because you are a priest and can affect people in a way Satan loves. Not listening to Mary’s messages, not discerning is not an option as we only have so many years on the earth. We can’t wait for the Church to discern. The question here is if Mary is appearing, are you and others ignoring her? As she says, living the messages is why she is here speaking and that ain’t easy.

FATHER JOE:

Maybe Satan is using you to silence one of God’s servants? Were you ordained to preach and teach? Were you ordained to forgive sins? Were you ordained to confect the Eucharist and to make Christ’s sacrifice present to the community? Pope Benedict XVI is arguably more critical. Will you try to silence him as well? Given that your comments are filled with heresy, would it not be better for you to return to the flock as one of the sheep and stop trying to be one of the shepherds?

SHANNON:

I am in two prayer groups and go to daily Mass and monthly Confession but priests like you who give dumb reasons on why Medjugorje just may be a hoax makes me lose my religion. See what you have done. Now I have to go to Confession for writing this attack on your character. But you deserve it because you have not done what you are called to do. Spend the time to discern. It is hard work but the fruits are worth it. As a priest it’s your job.

FATHER JOE:

You may have already lost your religion; and if that is the case, then it will be further testimony against the validity of Medjugorje. There is no true Church other than the Catholic Church. Leave the Church and you will be lost in the sea of lies and sin. Your Catholic faith and Medjugorje are not the same thing. Focus on the power of the Eucharist and say your daily Rosary. Let the real Jesus and Mary speak to your mind and heart.

SHANNON:

Mary once “spanked my hand” when she said I should treat people who don’t get it better. She said in a message, “You know the messages are true,” they don’t so how dare you be so insolent toward those who don’t know? I paraphrase but that’s what she said. Your reasoning is so ridiculous though I can’t hold back. Too many messages is the dumbest reason of all. Too much love is what you are saying.

FATHER JOE:

You think you are in getting inner locutions of your own? Such things can be very dangerous if you do not know how to discern spirits. Remember, anything which conflicts with the dogmatic teachings of the Church or which would disparage the apostolic ministry is by definition from the evil one. Know the difference, before it is too late.

GLEN:

Fr. Joe, I wouldn’t want to come out against something Mary was trying to accomplish, i.e. Medjugorje and have it turn out to be real. I would much rather believe something was real and have it turn out to be false. May God show you truth in all the decisions you have to make in your priestly vocation.  Your responsibility is overwhelming!  You have the power to bring almighty God to the altar! Thank you for that. I will pray for you, please pray for me and my family.

JENNY:

Fr. Joe, I have gone to Medjugorje twice (1994 and 2000), and I truly felt my relationship with God was greatly strengthened by my pilgrimages there. I was blessed to see the supernatural event of “The Miracle of the Sun,” not only there, but on a near-daily basis for 4 years after returning.

Having said this, I absolutely agree with you that as faithful Catholics we must be obedient to the Magisterium of the Church in all matters of Faith and Morals. I don’t understand how the people that comment on this blog can criticize your God-given authority as a priest and spiritual adviser! Everything you have said is exactly true! Until the Church declares the apparitions as authentic, we should be extremely cautious about what is going on there. I have often cautioned myself that the “miracle” I witnessed.  Could it possibly be a “trick of the devil”?  I have prayed for Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother to guide me in Truth. Since no evil has come out of my particular experience, and since I have drawn closer to God, I do believe that the apparitions are authentic and will eventually be declared as such by the Church; but even so, as you stated, private revelations are NOT necessary for our salvation. For people commenting here to act as though this unapproved apparition is absolutely authentic and anyone opposing it must be working for the devil, is very upsetting. We should thank God that the Church often takes many years to discern and approve of supernatural happenings, lest scandal sneak in and discredit the authority of the Church! A good example is that upon the death of Mother Teresa, the secular press thought the Church would immediately declare her a saint since everyone thinks she is anyway! The Church takes her time in these matters for good reason. The Church does not base her findings on public opinion (God help us if it did!); but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit! Yes, Mother Teresa was very saintly in her lifetime, and her cause for sainthood is underway, but until the Church canonizes her, we cannot presume upon where her soul is! She may be in Purgatory, awaiting the prayers of the Faithful! In conclusion, we MUST, as faithful Catholics, submit ourselves to the authority given to the Magisterium of the Church by Christ himself— and woe to anyone who criticizes a priest, bishop, cardinal or the Pope! We should be praying constantly for all of our priests, nuns and religious, since Satan particularly enjoys attacking them! God bless you, Fr. Joe!

RON:

After first learning about the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje, back in 1983, I’ve continued to monitor the events and pick up on any references. Especially throughout the 80’s, I recorded a number of TV programs, including an episode of the CBC documentary, “The Fifth Estate,” and an episode of the Shirley Show, a talk show on the Canadian network, CTV, not to mention an episode of Mysteries of the Unexplained. Considering that these programs could all be categorized as “secular”; especially the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) documentary, arguments against the veracity of the apparitions were weak indeed. These facts, coupled with getting to hear one of the visionaries speak live, in Edmonton, Alberta, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of Fatima, and the reality that the six visionaries attended the apparition site to pray daily for 15 years, to me is very persuasive. If the Medjugorje phenomenon is from the devil, then either the devil himself has been converted or there is no hope for salvation for any of us, because it is impossible to discern the truth from a lie.

PAUL:

Concerning Medjugorje, and reading some of the comments made about this place, with some people making comments about demonic forces being involved, i.e. Satan and company— well Satan must be making the biggest mistake ever because he is leading numerous souls back to God with people being converted back to the faith every day.  If some of these people would just read a small bit more on Medjugorje maybe they might get converted without even going there at all?  These are people who want to believe but are a bit cool to faith, so please show restraint and don’t fall into Satan’s trap.  Our lady is appearing there without a doubt, and there will be a sign left on apparition hill for the non-believers in God’s own time and choosing.  Our Lady’s main message is the call for sinners to repent of their sins and conversion.  I can tell you it is surely happening in Medjugorje; so all can say is Satan must be getting a bit soft in his old age.

CHARLES:

I am writing a book about Medjugorje and am trying to work through the positive and negative input that is both out there in cyberspace and from discussions from all folks involved. The one area that seems so controversial is the lack of support from the Mostar Diocese and Bishop, the conflicting stories out of Rome whether Pope John Paul II and our present Pontiff ever had given positive statements about Medjugorje that can be documented. I am also in touch with Vatican resources on this matter, as well as approaching the present Bishop of Mostar for his input. Lest you think I am negative I am not. I have been to Medjugorje twelve times, been in Ivan’s house during Our Lady’s appearance and in St. James choir loft also during an apparition. I know Jelena Vasilj personally, I have met all of the visionaries, know Fr. Svet, and many of the top tour guides. That has made it difficult to be objective, but after reading so many negative web sites and issues surrounding Medjugorje I felt someone must try and research this from a non-biased point of view and try if it be possible to put this to rest, or at least present the facts, fiction, history etc. in a well researched way. So I am contacting as many of the websites that look legitimate both from a positive and negative standpoint for their input into my research. So if you are willing I’d like your preliminary thoughts on why you believe or don’t believe in Medjugorje and permission to follow up at a later date for more in depth research.

FATHER JOE:

I do not know if it is supernatural or not. I will leave the verdict to Church authorities. You are right; it is hard to be objective. Have there not been enough books about it? People have repented and come back to God. Those instances would be positive. But are the messages, visitations, and inner-locutions objectively genuine? Why have they lasted so long? And why are there a few statements hard to reconcile with the truth about the characters involved and certain Catholic teachings? My speculation is not worth much and I doubt you will get much cooperation from authorities. The business is so popular among devout people that I suspect that Church leaders are frightened by possible schism and/or religious riot if a formal negative verdict is issued. So far, the local bishop has taken the heat. A lot of weight has to be given his appraisal. Some have spoken quite rudely about the bishop(s) and have dismissed the very real tension between the diocese and the Franciscans. In any case, if it is real I suspect that our Blessed Mother will do something spectacular to verify it. Such a miracle was promised. We are still waiting.

TIM:

Fr. Joe, I am saddened to see all the people who write such horrible things to you on this page. I would certainly delete some of them. Thank you for your service to our Lord and His Church! God bless you. (and to all of you who are so agitated about his comments on Medjugorje, take a deep breath and relax— you need to read them slooooooowly and then you will see they are not so bad).  God bless!

FATHER JOE:

Here is an extended BBC documentary of a pilgrimage group to Medjugorje in 2009.  The narrator is listed as Bernard Hill but older listeners will probably note that it sounds very much like Ken Roberts who was himself removed from priestly ministry.

A Vatican Commission was instituted in 2010 to officially study Medjugorje for possible recognition.  Out of respect for their work, the local bishop no longer speaks about the subject.   

Heading to the Beaches & Modesty

We are coming up on the warm months of the year and soon our people will be heading out to the beaches.  It is opportune to discuss again how we dress and what we communicate by our outward appearance.  As one critic rightly remarked, despite what people wear, it is good to get to know the inner person. Yes, but of course, there are many people we will never really know personally. Models in magazines and catalogues would be an example. The image may be all that we will ever encounter. Are they not saying something about their own self-respect (or lack thereof) by how they appear and how they allow themselves to be used? Strangers on a beach would be another such example.  Further, visual markers have a certain staying power.  We can say that dress (or undress) does not matter; but the truth is that it matters a great deal. 

Girl watching on the beach is a particularly volatile issue. People get mad or roll their eyes when I offer criticism.  It would be one thing if the men looked upon the women as one might a Michelangelo masterpiece, giving praise to God for the wonders of his creation and such beauty. However, men are not angels, and not infrequently, the sight of scantily clothed women is an occasion for sin— fantasies that lead to adultery in the heart, self-pollution, casual sex outside of marriage and sometimes crime. The question also arises as to what is or is not pornographic. Women would probably be better covered by ordinary underwear than by many styles of swimwear. Are men generally comfortable with showing off their wives, girlfriends and daughters in skimpy attire?

Of course, the clothing of the body is only one element to modesty. It includes dress, posture, speech, etc. Young women were once taught etiquette in such things. I can still recall a teacher talking to girls in my grammar school class about how to sit, with legs crossed. The religious sisters tell me that they were always at the girls about rolling up their skirts to their school uniforms. Even certain hair styles were regarded as somewhat provocative, although I never really understood this element. It finds some reference in Scripture and is the rationale behind the Catholic mantilla, the nun’s veil and the Islamic head covering. As I understand it, in Church circles, a woman’s hair-covering at Mass was to obscure her beauty sufficiently so that men might not be distracted from Eucharistic worship. It was also done as an ancient custom to honor God. However, I have never been one to find hair overtly sexual and as a serious threat to propriety. Maybe this is different for others?

The criticism might be offered that I have targeted the responsibility of women to be modest and have omitted men. I think there is a different psychology here. Both men and women are sexual beings, but we are not wired the same. While it is often wildly exaggerated, most men do not need much of a catalyst to think about sexual things. One girl told me that she liked to flirt but not to worry because she always stopped before she got the boys’ motors running. I quickly explained, “Sorry, but you need to know the boys’ motors are ALWAYS running!” It is no secret that pornography and the sex industry focus more heavily upon the female form than the male. In any case, presuppositions and possible stereotypes aside, men are also called to be chaste and modest. Tight fitting clothes or baggy pants that seem to be falling off are problematical. Speedo swim-shorts for men strike me also as unsightly and vulgar. Preoccupations with men’s butts can be for women a violation of the custody of the eyes. The groin-grasping dance of the late Michael Jackson would be evidence of an immodest gesture from men. Men and women must work together to preserve modesty and the many wonderful values which flow from it.

I will save the issue of how people dress when going to church for another day, after I take another blood pressure pill. 

Biblical Principles of Marriage

On Saturday, March 24, I gave a talk on the Biblical Foundations of Marriage at the PreCana Classes held at St. Mary of the Assumption in Upper Marlboro, MD. Some of the notes are give in the immediately previous posts. There is a joke that if you get two ministers in a room, you will get three different interpretations of Scripture. Given that biblical interpretation is so volatile these days, I first gave the gathering my five basic presuppositions. Next, I gave the ten basic principles of marriage from Scripture.

Presuppositions As we Begin

1. The Scriptures are inspired by God and teach truth.

2. We must have the mind of the Church in how Scripture is interpreted.

3. The Bible is not a marriage manual.

4. Better understanding of Scriptural truth comes through a contextual approach.

5. The truth about marriage in the Bible is revealed in a progressive way, culminating in the New Testament.

A Few Basic Biblical Principles

While the Bible is not a manual for marriage, there are some basic principles we can derive from God’s inspired Word. Here are a few:

1. Men and women were made for each other. Most men and women are called to marriage.

2. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. They pledge themselves to each other in vows made in the sight of God.

3. The husband is the head of the home and the wife is its heart.

4. While the Bible speaks of the wife’s submission to her husband, there is mutuality in this surrender since the husband is commanded to practice sacrificial love for her, even offering his life as Christ did on the Cross.

5. The husband and wife are dependent co-creators with God.

6. The spouses are called to be helpmates to one another in grace and holiness.

7. Marriage is a vocation that takes precedence over other preoccupations. Your attention and energies must first be focused toward one another.

8. Marriage is a sexually intimate relationship between a man and woman.

9. Christian marriage infers a third in the marriage, Christ. Couples enter into the mystery of Christ and his Church. Our Lord identifies himself with the beloved.

10. Couples should come to the marriage bed undefiled. All sexual activity outside of marriage was regarded by the Jews as a violation of the commandment against adultery.

A Hierarchy of Love in the Home

Given that one sees a hierarchy in marriage; neither spouse should lead the other into sin. Similarly, parents can rightfully demand honor and obedience from children, but they must be worthy of such honor. Many things might be excused to preserve the peace of a home; but once a husband starts ordering his wife and children around as slaves, it will not be a happy home. When there is abuse, cruelty and sin; an offending spouse is stripped of authority by the one who is the source for all authority. The message of the Gospel is to embrace a sacrificial love. Jesus pours himself out on the Cross. If this is to be realized in marriage, then it must be mutual. The husband pours his hopes and dreams and life into his wife. Conversely, she pours all her longings and love into her husband. When there is this mutual self-donation, a couple may always be filled and whole. Indeed, their love may bear the wonderful and mysterious gift of children wherein God makes them co-creators with himself. When one gives and the other only takes, the one finds him or herself empty and the other caged in selfishness. Such a mentality is at the root of cold marriages, adultery and the culture of death.

Men and women are both made in the divine image; they have a need for mercy and a capacity for grace. The Scriptures make it very clear that they are called to be helpmates in becoming holy. Marriage comes down from our first parents to the present as an institution to bring fidelity and fruitfulness to the loneliness of the human condition.

Jesus Elevates the Dignity of Women

While always regarded as something more than a man’s land and livestock, the Mosaic writ of divorce and cataloguing women along with property, tended to undermine something of the woman’s personal worth and her role as a companion in marriage. Jesus seeks to correct this by stressing the primordial union and elevating the value of women whom he encountered. The woman caught in adultery was threatened with stoning. His challenge to the crowd saves her. But he tells her to avoid this sin in the future. She was singled out for condemnation by the mob, but where was the man with whom she sinned? A double-standard was at work. The Samaritan woman at the well is told her past by Christ, who knows all her infidelities, and he offers her saving water. She too did not sin alone and who knows what dire circumstances pressed her into many transitory unions? She becomes a prophetess for her people. He forbids divorce as something that was never supposed to be, but tolerated before his coming because of the hardness of their hearts. Women deserve better treatment and should not be cast off.

Then there is the Mother of Christ. At the wedding feast of Cana she tells him that the wine has run out. He says to her, what business is this to me, woman? Joseph is gone and now Jesus is the head of her little household. Nevertheless, she tells the stewards to do as he says and he changes water into wine. The heart of the home will always have a lot of influence and meaning. Jesus preserves the joy of the marriage banquet. Similarly when located in the temple, the boy Jesus challenges her. And yet, we are told that he “immediately” came along with her and the good St. Joseph and was obedient to them. Mary was “the woman,” and according to the fathers of the Church, “the new Eve.” She would be the spiritual Mother of the many adopted sons and daughters of God. Although his physical Mother, she would also prefigure the Church as the spiritual and spotless bride of Christ. Her model for womanhood would always be with Jesus. Our Lord saw in her the great dignity and immeasurable value of all women, and their inherent potential for holiness.

The Complementary Role of Husband and Wife

A major source of discussion these days is the notion of a husband’s headship. Largely because of the sexual revolution, many take serious exception to it. However, I suspect that it is largely misunderstood. While isolated verses would seem to place all the gravity with the husband, the Catholic “contextual” approach would weigh it with references to the role and value of the wife. There is equality between the spouses and yet this should not be interpreted in any egalitarian manner. Each spouse has his or her complementary role to play. Notice in the life of the Holy Family, Joseph is understood as their great defender. And yet, it is Mary who is focused upon as the parent at the Presentation in the Temple. Similarly, when the boy Jesus is found in the Temple, the recorded conversation is between Jesus and Mary. Joseph is the foster father of Christ. He is entrusted with his family’s care. But respecting Mary’s motherhood and her deep faith, he steps back and allows her to do the talking. This does not destroy his headship. Instead, he had a good enough head to appreciate Mary’s strength, gifts and calling.

As a boy my family always respected my father as the head of the home. Daddy would work hard, cash his check and give mother all the money to pay the bills. She would take out two dollars and put it back into his wallet saying, “A man should always have money in his wallet.” She did so many things that he found difficult. They worked together. They lived out a real partnership. At the same time, my mother always gave my father the deepest respect. We were a poor family but my dear father worked from 5:30 AM to 6:00 PM six days a week so that we could have a roof over our heads and food on the table. Mother was a stay-at-home Mom, but she worked just as hard or harder in caring for the home and seven children. She would have been the first to say that Daddy was the head of our family; but by the same token, mother was the heart of our home. Which is more important, the head or the heart? Take away either one, and a body dies.

St. Paul speaks about the headship of the husband and father but also insists that they be subject to one another as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:21). There is a profound unity between the husband and wife going back to Genesis. The two become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Jesus will also stress this unity (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:7-9). It signifies a definite spiritual bond or connection between the spouses. Given its ecclesial significance, Christ raises this union to the level of a sacrament.

Ephesians 5: 21-33

Colossians 3:18–21

Titus 2:3-8

1 Peter 3:1–7

The Practicality of St. Paul

St. Paul is the Jew’s Jew.  He draws from the Old Testament relation of marriage between the Chosen People and God to speak analogously of Christ as the divine bride groom and the Church as his bride.  Paul is also very practical.  While he has a preference for single-hearted or celibate discipleship, he acknowledges that not everyone has that gift.

1 Corinthians 7: 1-16

Marriage and the Eternal Quality of Love

Certain Sadduccees tried to trick Jesus with a question that mocked the resurrection. They asked, without pure intent, whose wife a woman would be in the kingdom who had alternately married seven brothers, each dying in turn?

Luke 20: 34-38: “Jesus said to them, ‘The children of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise. That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called ‘Lord’ the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

This teaching fits neatly into the appreciation of marriage as a sacrament. Marriage in this world is a sacred sign which participates in the great marriage banquet of heaven between the Lamb and his Church. When we rise to new life, there will be no more faith, because we will know the truth and see God face to face. Mortal marriage ends at the entry way from this world to the next because we will know a unity with the divine bridegroom. Having said this, death does not bring an end to love. Indeed, in Christ, love conquers the grave. Love is eternal because life is everlasting. The figure or sign of marriage will be replaced by that which is most real and pure. We will abide within God, that perfect union in divine love, forever.

Permanency of Marriage

Jesus raises the bar on marriage, taking sides in the debate about divorce. Jewish men might write a writ of divorce, leaving the women vulnerable and destitute in their society. Our Lord would have none of it. Citing creation itself (Genesis 1:27 and 5:2), he asserts that men and women were made for each other and that God intended their union to last throughout life. This position in favor of permanence reflected the school of Shammai. An opposing view was espoused by the rabbinic school of Hillel, which permitted men to divorce their wives, even capriciously. This would be similar to the idea of no-fault divorce today.

Matthew 19:1-12

Mark 10:1-12

Jesus saw husbands and wives both culpable for failed marriages. The two in one flesh did not permit any wiggle room or escape clause. Both monogamy and marital permanence become traits of Christian marriages. Divorce would generally disappear from Christian circles until the Protestant Reformation.

While St. Paul would speak about celibacy as an eschatological sign of the kingdom, our Lord also associates his kingdom with marriage. His very first miraculous sign in his public ministry will be at the wedding feast of Cana. While some might suppose that Jesus only lightens the burdens placed upon people by the Pharisees, he actually adds to their weight. The reason why he seems more gentle and tolerant is because of his generosity in offering the mercy of heaven and divine grace. Remember that Jesus has taken away the option for divorce and says things like love those who hate you and forgive those who persecute you. He says that just to hate your brother is to violate the commandment against killing. Returning to this topic, at the Sermon on the Mount, he commands that even to look at a woman lustfully is the commission of adultery. The Mosaic Law, often referenced by St. Paul as burdensome, permitted a writ of divorce. Instead, Jesus substitutes an absolute prohibition, except for what is sometimes translated as “sexual immorality” or “adulterous.” These words fail to appreciate the magnitude of what Jesus is saying. The actual word used is PORNEA and in this context the New American renders it politely as “unlawful marriage,” but it probably means INCEST. Such marriages are not true marriages, the reason why the Church grants annulments, such unions are not sanctioned by God. However, if a marriage is genuine, then it will endure until the death of one of the spouses. Given the fact that it was a patriarchal society, divorce forced women to seek a new protector and source of support. In this sense, not only the man, but the woman was forced into adultery.

Impotence & Marriage

Over the years I have received a number of questions about disabilities and marriage. I am always reminded about one of my first ministerial tasks at the Washington Hospital Center in the District of Columbia. A 22 year old marine had experienced a training accident which left him a paraplegic. His young and very attractive fiancée was ever at his bedside, holding a hand which could no longer feel hers. He wanted to die. Certainly he did not want to tie her down to a man the doctors insisted would always be an invalid. Her response was to remain by his side and to offer tears of intercession for his pain and their lost dreams. Many years have passed since our encounter, and I am still unsure what might best be said in such a situation. It was not a time to come down on their hopes with a debate about the laws of nature and of the Church. I shared their space, offered them prayers and what consolation I could muster, but I could not take away the depths of their loss.

The marital act open to new life and seeking the good of the beloved is a sign and seal of the sacrament. The marriage covenant is consummated and renewed by it. Cognizant of our nature as bodily persons, the Church is also realistic and pragmatic enough to realize that marriages which shortchange sexual intimacy often fuel the fires of infidelity and alienation. The question here is not simply one of disability, but of the type of disability. Blindness, deafness, loss of certain limbs, etc. pose no such impediment to marriage. Even infertility does not negate the right of marriage if no deceit is present when the vows are made. However, can a person mentally deranged or seriously incompetent get married? No, not if they lack a conscious awareness of the nature and obligations of marriage. A paralyzed person, might be fully aware of the responsibilities of marriage, but be incapable of fulfilling them. The law of the Church in such cases is simply a reflection of the natural law. Having said this, once consummated, a tragic accident of such a nature would not abrogate the bond. The initial consummation, uncoerced and unimpeded by contraception, makes a sacramental marriage indissoluble.

What recourse would a couple have in getting married if one of the members is paralyzed from the neck or even from the waist down? Depending on the situation, the bishop himself may not be at liberty to grant a dispensation for marriage. This would especially be the case if there is no real possibility of recovery and consummation of the bond. Having said this, a very grave concern of the Church would be the use of oral sex as an attempted substitute for the marital act. While permissible in the old morals manuals as a precursor to intercourse, it cannot be sought as an ends unto itself. It falls on many of the same arguments as masturbation and homosexual interactions. Moving on, it is possible that some degree of medication and therapy might restore enough function to fulfill the marital act. In such a case, marriage could be permitted. Further, modern technologies have made available various pump mechanisms (requiring surgery) which would make possible an erection. If there is some transmission of seminal fluid, then again, marriage might very well be permitted. This position is not a reduction of the human person to a gross physicalism but the recognition that our living bodies, inextricable animated by souls, are the real expressions of our identity. Unless forsaken for the kingdom, the needs of these personal bodies– our very selves– cannot be underestimated. Having said all this, there is still another avenue a couple might pursue, although a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage. They could live their lives promising perpetual virginity along the lines of the Virgin Mary and the good St. Joseph.

Whatever a couple in such a fix decides to do, they will definitely know the Cross. It is my hope that the Church will always show them the redemptive value of joining our sufferings to the passion of Christ. What this world takes away, the next will restore. What this world leaves us, we can utilize for the coming of the next.

Discussion

SIMON:

Father, this is an interesting summary, and thank you for writing and posting. Here is my question. I have been married for almost 20 years. For the past 7, I have suffered from impotence due to diabetes. My wife and I were blessed with 4 children before the impotence occurred, and were always open to children in our marriage. Since becoming impotent, I have respected my wife’s opinion that we are to remain chaste from now on. Although I have tried all available impotence remedies, none work for us. I would never ask her to do anything she is uncomfortable with, but I cannot grasp how we are forbidden from being intimate even though we can no longer have intercourse. I understand that intercourse is meant to be both procreative and unitive. Impotency has removed our ability to be procreative, but why are we no longer allowed to be unitive, not through intercourse (which we would gladly do if it were at all possible), but through oral or digital stimulation? In the case of sterility, couples are encouraged to be unitive without being able to be procreative. This identification of intercourse as the only unitive act for couples suffering from the heartbreak of impotency pains me. My wife cries about the loss of intimacy. How can this be right? Must we lie together every night and never experience any physical love again? At least a priest’s or homosexual’s decision to remain celibate isn’t constantly tested every night by having the object of their desire lying right next to them. They can remove all “near occasions of sin.” Short of moving out of the marital bed, further removing some of the marital intimacy, I have no recourse to lessen the constant reminder and struggle to understand why the Church deems this to be better for us. It does help to get this off my chest. I do not feel comfortable discussing this with anyone.

FATHER JOE:

Dear Simon, I am sorry for the frustration both you and your wife feel. If you have not already, the problem of impotency might be something better discussed with a professional counselor sympathetic to Catholic teaching. When I discuss generalities, it can come across as cold. Certainly, as a celibate priest, I can in no way appreciate the full personal dynamics of such a situation. You are right; there is a vast difference between a man who sleeps alone and one who rests in bed with the female object of his desire and affection.

I am unable to give you the answer or clarification I know you wish to hear. Although I suppose given the nature of your bond, the moral gravity of an illicit act of affection might be lessened.

While impotency prior to a marriage is an impediment, it has no appreciable effect upon the sacrament afterwards, given that there has been consummation, not to mention, children.

While you suggest a parallel with the question of potency without fertility, the pivotal difference is that the mechanics of the marital act remain the same. It is still the type of act that naturally can result in children and to which the male and female bodies complement each other. Such cannot be said where male potency has been compromised and oral or digital manipulation is pursued.

The Church’s understanding of marital intimacy is more than sexual excitement and physical intimacy. It is the bonding of flesh and souls, with one another and with Jesus. Oral sex and digital manipulation might arguably be closer to masturbation than to the marital act. And while there might be some legitimacy when practiced in tandem with the marital act, the Church resists any complete substitution.

However, if you disagree, I would simply suggest that you regularly bring the matter up in confession, out of respect for Church teaching, and do the best you can to live the Christian life. God knows you love each other and any transgressions from weakness and longing between a husband and wife in such a situation would seem to be small matters to be kept between yourselves and your confessor. It may happen one day that some new therapy or medication may cure the problem. We cannot know the future and should struggle to do the best we can in the present.

There are priests out there who might say, go ahead do what you want, it does not matter. But I cannot in good conscience do that. What I can say is do not despair and know that God is infinitely forgiving and understands how unfair and difficult life can become. If we trip from time to time, he will help pick us up.

Finally, there are some wonderful ways to express intimacy that might restore the romantic elements you both knew when dating and in courtship. Candy and flowers always go a long way. Ballroom dancing is making a come-back. Picnics and boat rides are good. Holding each other tight on a porch swing and sharing lots of hugs and kisses is not so bad either… or so I am told. As spouses you can cuddle and flirt and if things get a little out of hand, well God called you together as lovers and in the heat of passion the boundaries might become blurred on occasion.

Trust each other.
Keep faith in God and in his mercy.
Respect the teachings of the Church.
I will be praying for you both.

ROBERT:

Dear Father Joe, I am a young Catholic man (age 24) engaged to be married and have been researching for personal interest “Josephite Marriage” or “White Marriage.”

As I understand it, under Canon Law, a couple where one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.

As I understand it, what a couple exchange in the marriage vows is the right to demand the marital debt from one another (if the request is reasonable and opportune).

In a “virginal marriage” this right is not used by the mutual consent of the couple. This right is mutually given up for the “sake of the kingdom.”

In a “virginal marriage” there is a mutual agreement not to use a right exchanged (the right to the marital debt).

In an antecedently and perpetually impotent couple, the right to the marital debt cannot be exchanged. Hence, there can be no marriage. One cannot exchange what one does not have.

Hence (from what I’ve gathered on the internet), no marriage can take place between a couple in which one or both partners are antecedently and perpetually impotent not even if the non-impotent party agrees to live a virginal marriage. God bless.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, Robert, you are quite right that canon law stipulates that “a couple in which one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.” Actually, Canon 1084 §1 says that it “invalidates the marriage.”

Note, however, that my post was also very tentative, saying that virginal marriage was a course that such a couple “MIGHT pursue” and that “a sexual dysfunction MIGHT be coercive.” I know the prohibition seems absolute on paper, but I have known cases where exceptions were made, particularly if the dysfunction were not absolute.

While confidentiality does not allow me to reveal many details, I can say this much:

1. Such cases were referred to the local bishop.

2. Only after a canonical, medical and pastoral investigation were decisions made.

3. Bishops themselves (in contact with Rome) gave dispensations from the canonical impediment (somewhat controversial because a few of us thought it might be elevating a juridical process over natural law) or argued that Canon 1084 §2 took precedence.

4. Both partners had to make a faith profession and renounce any and all sexual activity for the sake of the kingdom. It was understood, however, that if the problem of impotence should later find medical resolution, that the bishop had the authority to release them from their vowed celibacy.

5. A theoretical conjecture was noted whereby future medical discoveries might restore the partner’s lost sexual capacity.

6. A rather progressive interpretation was given to this law: “If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null” (Canon 1084 §2 ).

When bishops give such a dispensation and/or ruling, and the news goes public, as you might suspect, there is a lot of controversy. This is particularly so because not all bishops would grant such permission anyway. Speaking as a mere parish priest, I have serious reservations about it, myself.

One case that I recall revolved around the fact that the woman was the paralyzed man’s principal caregiver as well as his best friend. It was also taken into consideration that they were engaged before the accident. Being devout Catholics they wanted to be together, but did not want to commit the scandal of cohabitation outside of marriage. I heard of another case, where a couple already had a child out of wedlock (before the incident that caused paralysis), and they wanted to provide a home with both a father and a mother.

The situation and question can became increasingly complicated, as you can see.

Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.

The situation of allowing impotent men to marry, for the male is where the gravity rests in our theology, is a serious risk on many levels. People are sexual beings. A young woman married to a paralyzed man would naturally desire sexual congress with her husband; the real danger exists that improper acts might be committed and even adultery. The impotent and/or paralyzed man is also taking a terrible chance, as he may find himself emotionally frustrated at not being able to fulfill his marital duty toward his spouse. They might also commit the sin of invitro-fertilization after harvesting sperm cells. In the past, paralyzed people were almost always refused the marriage rite; however, medical discoveries have made people increasingly optimistic about recovery of some sensation and mobility. I am not sure yet if this current optimism is well enough founded on hard science to recommend liberality regarding impotence and freedom to marriage. If impotence is not reversed, the healthy spouse could readily leave the marriage and seek an annulment on the grounds that there was no consummation. Such cases go to Rome. In any case, this leaves the handicapped man open to abandonment.

Aquinas admitted that sexual copulation was not essential to marriage, thus why virginal marriages are even possible; however, he was quick to assert that marriage gives both spouses the natural right over the other spouse’s body for the purpose of the marital act. A permanently paralyzed and/or impotent man cannot consummate the bond, either in actuality or potency. Nevertheless, the female spouse has a right to that unitive act that furthers both fidelity and procreation.

It should be added that if a man is injured (becoming paralyzed and/or impotent) after marriage and its consummation with the marital act, the couple remain married and must endure with faithfulness and courage the plight that has come to them.

DON:

Please, someone tell me this particular column is a cruel joke, kind of like a news story from the Onion website.

FATHER JOE:

About a tragic subject, for sure, but this page is entirely serious.

MARC:

Father Joe, good reasoning in your discussion; my prostate removal has left me not only with ED but also with the absence of seminal fluid. Periodically, I use injections for an erection which “sometimes” is shared with my wife depending on timing, etc. When this happens, it is used to a good moral use well within Church guidelines. But on many other occasions, there is neither erection nor fluid. My wife and I feel that we need to keep our intimacy strong or the relationship will fade leaving both of us blind to each other’s love. Is oral not an option at our age of 64 and married 41 years? Thank you and confused.

FATHER JOE:

Sexual expression and/or the marital act are precious gifts to married couples. However, if the marital act should become difficult or impossible, then the couple should explore chaste forms of affection and signs of love, as with the initial courtship. Dinner and a movie, snuggling on the couch, holding hands and taking walks, kisses and cuddling, etc. You also have your memories.

LINDA:

I have been told by a priest that artificial insemination is allowed if one’s spouse is sterile by deformity (but not impotent) and that to alleviate the “frustration” of the woman to bear a child of her womb, the Church would not reject this couple or child. Is there precedent for this?

FATHER JOE:

What the priest told you is not true. Artificial insemination is forbidden without exception by the Church. The reasoning is that every human being should come into existence through the marital act. There can be no third party intervention in the act of bonding and mutual surrender of the spouses to each other and to divine providence. There is a precise act that God has instituted for the creation of human beings. Artificial insemination and IVF can create the mentality that children are commodities. Further, Christianity teaches that children are a gift from God; no one has a RIGHT as such to a child.

If a couple violate moral law and defy the Church, the Church would not reject the couple and/or the child. The child is innocent and cannot be faulted for the misbehavior of parents, no matter whether it be through illicit fertilization procedures or acts of rape or incest. The parents can know absolution if they express some small degree of sorrow and subsequent respect for Church authority.

MORGAN:

Father Joe, I met my wife in Medugorje. We wrote letters to each other over the years and fell in love. One day she said to me over the phone, “When you find out about me, you will have the choice to come or go.” I didn’t know then what it meant. I had many guesses in my mind. But none were reasonable. Then one night while in prayer I heard what I believe was the Lord. He told me what was wrong with her and asked me if I would love her. I said yes. A few moments later the phone rang and it was her. I told her what was wrong and she was surprised. I also told her that I would love her.

My wife had cancer when she was 2 years old. They took her uterus, vagina and eggs. Everything was taken leaving a scar and a clitoris. There is no penetration.

I went to Medugorje with her again and asked a priest if marrying her was the right choice despite her impotency. He said we could be together as long as we lived as the angels do.

She further went and talked to her local bishop who said marriage in the church was not possible, but we could do a legal marriage to be together so long as we live chastely.

The day we got married, it was not our intention. It was the only day my sister could organize with the judge, April 14, 2006— Good Friday of that year.

We have lived together for 3 years now. My wife does have feeling in her clitoris and I am a fully capable male. If we did do anything, would it be wrong for us to do? Can we get married in the Catholic Church? If not, do we seek this Virginal Marriage from our local bishop and would it constitute as a marriage inside the church?

Also, we ran into a priest who said our legal marriage was wrong, we couldn’t adopt kids, and he tried to make my wife promise we would separate after some time. He said he wouldn’t give her absolution in confession unless she promised to do so. She did not promise it. She came to me in tears.

I love my wife. She has stuck with me through a war, taken care of me, and we both share a cross. I couldn’t see myself with anyone else. Do I need to seek a miracle and if so, how do I do that?

FATHER JOE:

I would suggest that you seek out someone in the diocesan chancery and/or authorities in Catholic medical ethics. Infertility would not prevent marriage. The issue is impotency and the marital act. There are many points here which are unique to your case and would need to be explored by experts, both in medicine and in Church law. I can only speculate, but would it be possible to surgically refashion a type of female genitalia for her? I know there have been cases of men, particularly those with paralysis, who have had pumps surgically inserted to make the marital act possible. Oral and anal sex are disapproved as beneath human dignity and do not constitute consummation of the bond. A virginal relationship would pose no particular problem, but a Catholic marriage respecting sexual intimacy poses important hurdles for you both. Vowed virginal marriages in the Church are fairly rare, and usually require that a couple denounces vaginal sex, not that they are incapable of it.

I am sorry for the suffering you both endure and regret that you feel hurt by the hard counsel of a brother priest. I wish I had more answers for you or those you so desperately want to hear. Even if you should be asked to refrain from Holy Communion, go to Mass each Sunday and pray daily with each other. Yours are not sins of malice. Your struggle is with love, affection and the frailty of the human condition. You will both remain in my prayers.

FRANK:

Father Joe, re: Josephite Marriage, and your previous discussion of it, I fail to understand just what kind of union results from the exchange of promises, (of chastity and fidelity), in a marriage in which one of the principals is irreversibly impotent. Is there a real covenant? One which is just as binding civilly and religiously as in a normal marriage? Can’t understand why the healthy party in such cases can’t just, willy nilly, choose to walk away, without considering the medium of divorce or annulment.

FATHER JOE:

I did say that “a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage,” meaning that such an alternative would be problematical. The post was originally written some time back and I am not sure I meant a “Josephite marriage,” probably just an analogous spiritual friendship. A true Josephite marriage would imply that a couple freely opted not to exercise their genital prerogatives. Impotence means there is no choice, no potential for the marital act.

LAURA:

I came across this post today when trying to look into this issue as it has been bothering me. I may be wrong, but I thought that in the case of a “properly functioning” couple, John Paul II drew a distinction between oral sex for men and women. As I understand the teaching, since the female orgasm has nothing to do with conception, oral stimulation of the woman is permitted even if not in conjunction with a completed act of intercourse. At least that’s how I have had the teaching explained to me. If that’s the case, I still can’t wrap my head around why, for a couple for whom conception is impossible (i.e. a couple where one partner is impotent), the teaching would be any different. In other words, I didn’t think the “no oral sex without completed act of intercourse” rule was about conception and being open to life, not about mechanics of the act. If the couple would be open to life but for the impotence, I’m not sure how oral sex for this couple is different than the permissible oral sex on a woman in a normal-functioning couple.

FATHER JOE:

I do not recall the late pope making any such distinction that would permit female masturbation. The marital act is defined as that sexual act which is the type of act that is open to the transmission of human life. Pleasure for both men and women is an enticement for intercourse that is required for the propagation of the species. It is also an ingredient in the fidelity of the spouses. While the old moral manuals permitted a certain level of foreplay to facilitate the marital act, as well as manipulation of the female if the male climaxed too quickly, such stimulation apart from intercourse was frowned upon. As far as I know, nothing has changed. I suspect someone taught you wrong. Where is Pope John Paul II supposed to have said otherwise? The late pope gave an emphasis upon spousal fidelity that was sometimes eclipsed by procreation in Catholic thinking; but nothing in his theology of the body overturned basic morality.

LAURA:

I went back and looked at what I had read, and I suppose you are right that oral sex on a woman is not permitted in and of itself. But here is what I read (by Christopher West) that is still not quite what you are saying:

“The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).”

FATHER JOE:

Yes, he is correct. I have not written anything which contradicts this. Onanism is still a sin, no matter whether alone or with a partner. Strictly speaking, this regards the male “spilling the seed.” Foreplay that includes male climax is not foreplay. Rather, it has wrongly been substituted for the marital act. Similarly, after intercourse, the manipulation of the female by the husband so that she might climax has been judged as lawful by moralists.

LAURA:

I recognize that Christopher West is not an official authority in the Church, but if what he’s saying is true, while I’m wrong that female stimulation is permitted as an isolated act, it would appear that oral sex as foreplay is not “frowned upon” as you say, nor is some female stimulation prohibited even after sex (which does not confine it just to the realm of “foreplay”). This is also consistent with what is written in the book “Holy Sex,” written by a number of modern Catholic theologians.

FATHER JOE:

What West writes is okay, however, your commentary is not clear. Foreplay is only frowned upon if the male climaxes without true intercourse. But, as I said, then it is not foreplay but simply oral sex or masturbation. Give me the quote where I am wrong and I will correct it. Peace!

DAVID:

Are implants to treat impotence banned by Church teaching where there are no other alternative treatments to achieve a valid marriage?

FATHER JOE:

Implants, as such, are not banned.

DAVID:

Are surgically implanted pumps allowed as a means of overcoming impotence?

FATHER JOE:

It is a tricky and somewhat controversial business. Evidently bishops will sometimes give a dispensation for marriage after the implantation of such pumps. The argument is that with this intervention the impotence is no longer absolute. I am not sure if all bishops are happy with such a compromise. Particularly in cases of paralysis, it might make the mechanics possible, but the man would still not feel anything. How would this affect their mutual self-donation and bonding in the marital act? There may be little other recourse after marriage. If paralysis or injury brought about such serious impotence in a man prior to marriage, I would probably advise a reconsideration altogether. People are not machines and the flesh is weak. My perspective might seem cold, heartless and cynical. I do not intend to come across this way. But I have seen too many relationships of this sort, between a woman and impotent man, fall apart with the most devastating consequences. Could not such men settle for simple and chaste friendships?

EILEEN:

My question is not related directly to this topic, but I have been searching for an answer and cannot find it, so figured I’d try here.

Thirteen years ago, upon learning that I was pregnant with our sixth child, my husband, against my wishes, had a vasectomy. This nearly broke our marriage and it took a long time to recover. (He was not raised Catholic and is a convert who struggles with the ban on contraceptives.)

Since that time, there have been a few occasions (very few) where during sexual activity he has engaged in self-stimulation along with the mutual activity. Usually, this all ultimately ends up with penetration taking place and the completion of the sex act as it should; but on a couple of occasions, he has ejaculated outside of [the body].

As the ejacula no longer carries sperm, and as the intent at the beginning of the sexual activity was to complete internally, is this a mortal sin?

FATHER JOE:

First, the vasectomy was wrong and sinful for several reasons. It is regarded as a mutilation of the human person and the generative powers. It reflects a contraceptive mentality wherein the openness to human life which is intrinsic to the marital act is spurned. Upon repentance, and where possible, the Church would also recommend repair of the damaged faculties.

Second, there may have been emotional healing, but an important element of the sacramental reality of your marital covenant remained wounded.

Third, given the vasectomy, it would seem that the matter of a ban upon artificial contraceptives would be a “personally” mute point. He has embraced perpetual infertility over periodic sterility. Many lifelong Catholics also dissent upon this matter. He may have been a convert, but did he “convert” enough?

Fourth, while an element of manipulation may be understood as foreplay and preparation for the marital act; such activities must not be pursued in themselves or seen as independent. Human beings are not animals and the marital act should not be reduced to cold mechanics. It is ideally a self-donation and surrender to the beloved. While accidents do happen, we should still be watchful against the sin of Onanism.

Fifth, the intention behind the actions that surround the marital act do have moral weight. However, the fact that the ejacula is deficient or void of sperm does not matter in this situation of self-manipulation or arousal outside the marital act.

JAN:

Erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment has evolved a lot from traditional times. Earlier this problem was believed to be caused by psychological factors only, but now we know better, so have the treatments.

ROSIE:

What do you do when you have been married for nearly 9 years and your husband has never been able to properly [fulfill the marital act]? The cause being diabetes but you didn’t know this until recently. He is able to bring you to climax [through manipulation] but you find this, although better than nothing, very much unsatisfactory. Also you can’t talk about how you feel with him. Also facing the temptation of other males on the scene for which intercourse would be very easy. Is this a real marriage or should it be annulled?

FATHER JOE:

Dear Rosie, I am far from an authority upon such issues and this is a somewhat delicate question. However, there are a few points I would like to note:

First, as a married couple you should be able to dialogue with your spouse about your personal needs in this relationship. It might be hard, but nothing can be done to help the situation unless you work together.

Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.

Third, I would urge you to avoid both actual temptation and fantasies toward adultery. Take the matter of divorce and annulment off the table. You have been married for almost a decade. Fight for your marriage and love one another, “for better or for worse” until death do you part.

Fourth, do not be afraid to work with a doctor who might be able to help you both. Not all physical problems can be overcome, but sometimes situations can be much improved. Peace!

ALLIE:

I have a question. You said, “Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.”

And later, you suggested that the woman who had surgery for cancer at age 2 that removed her vagina (and uterus, and ovaries), have surgery to create an artificial vagina. Can you help me understand Church law regarding these types of surgeries? And why have you tied male sexual pleasure as a necessity of the marital act? Especially since, as you pointed out, “Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.”

It seems to me that whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple should be permissible, whether that is allowing impotent couples to come together in intimacy of their own choosing or allowing couples to marry who know that what they currently have in a physical relationship (i.e., paraplegics, etc.) is all they can lawfully have. I should think that the binding thread here is LOVE. Having read the entire page today, it seems to me that the unlawful marriage of the couple from Medjugorie is far more of a loving union than Rosie’s marriage of almost a decade. My heart goes out to all the couples here. You are struggling with much. And I am struggling to understand myself.

FATHER JOE:

The marital act is defined by the Church in light of natural law. Other forms of intimacy and/or sexual congress have neither the capacity to consummate the marital covenant nor any significant degree of fecundity. The general subjective experience (which often includes some degree of pleasure) furthers the good of fidelity between spouses. My emphasis is not directly upon pleasure but upon the capacity of a couple to engage in non-contraceptive sexual intercourse as a requirement for marriage.

As for the reconstruction of genitalia, the morality hinges upon the repair of something impaired, as through accident or cancer. Such repair is not always possible. Further, no such reconstruction should seek to alter the external gender in contradiction to that given at birth and in the DNA. The Church opposes so-called sex-change operations and views such measures in terms of self-mutilation and the unlawful or immoral damaging of physical faculties.

You would accept as legitimate “whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple.” However, by extension, this is also the erroneous argument posed by homosexuals seeking the recognition of their unions as a form of marriage. The problem is that the marital act between a man and woman, defined as non-contraceptive vaginal intercourse, allows for no substitutions. One can feign the act, either through choice or because the actual act is impossible, but such neither consummates nor renews the marital covenant. Instead of a virtuous act which brings grace, there would be the commission of sin instead. That is the Catholic view, again based upon divine positive law and especially natural law. Love and friendship are indeed important. But one can have both outside of sexual relationships. Indeed, as a celibate priest, I have dedicated my life to the love of God and to the service of his people. Marriage is not the only sacrament of love. The ordination of a priest is a sacrament of love. Indeed, our common baptism into the family of God is the first and most basic sacrament of love. The right to marriage is not absolute. If it were, we would have to pass out spouses just as we distribute bread to the hungry. It does not work that way.