Celibacy | Blogger Priest

Conflict Between Homosexuality & Catholicism

Posted on September 19, 2014 by Father Joe

Msgr. Pope followed up his post on fornication and cohabitation with one on homosexuality. This is a real hotbed issue (no pun intended) and I suspect that in the face of growing political and social acceptance, many preachers and religious leaders are hesitant to take it on in a critical fashion. Given curt responses from Pope Francis and Cardinal Dolan which were quickly misconstrued, many are wrongly anticipating a change in the Church’s stance toward homosexual acts. This just is not going to happen. Our respect for natural law and for the authority of Scripture and Tradition make any compromise absolutely impossible on this issue. The mechanisms in place that safeguard the deposit of faith will allow no repudiation of basic moral truths— what befell the Episcopalian churches can never happen in the Catholic Church.

Men and women are their bodies. They are ordered toward marital union and propagation. Same-sex unions are inherently disordered and closed to biological fruitfulness. That is one of the reasons why the first element of the faith attacked was our adoption services. The Boston and Washington Archdioceses had to shut down their programs because of legal insistence that children be adopted by homosexual and lesbian couples. We could not do it. The Church cannot deliberately participate in an act that would cooperate with moral evil or place children into a position of suffering spiritual harm. Homosexual acts neither further the end of procreation nor foster genuine fidelity or union between spouses. Homosexual marriage is regarded by the Church as an empty secular legal construct which is, in fact, an outright deception or fiction. Both natural bonds and sacramental unions require the proper matter of men and women… their whole selves and bodies.

Msgr. Pope is quite right that both the Old and the New Testaments reject homosexual activity. Indeed, some contend that just quoting Old Testament sanctions for homosexuality would constitute a hate crime. St. Paul is clear; it is in conflict with the values of Christ’s kingdom. While certain revisionist churches come straight out and criticize God’s Word as wrong (culturally conditioned stereotypes over immutable objective truths), there are also biblical authorities who engage in fanciful exegetical gymnastics to make provision for such acts despite black-and-white condemnations. They point to their credentials or alphabet soup after their names as if that makes them a suitable parallel magisterium. Desperate to find loopholes, they propose theories and speculation as if they are fact. They insist that only a homosexuality, really a pederasty that targeted children was condemned— not consensual relationships between adults. They argue that the divine prohibition only targeted lustful promiscuity— not faithful monogamous and loving relationships. They would have us take their word on this, as neither the “letter” nor the “spirit” of God’s Word makes such strained distinctions. It is a contemporary reading into Scripture what is not there. It is much like a loose constructionist arguing for rights or interpretations in the U.S. Constitution which the framers never imagined. They would do for faith what politically motivated judges would do for the laws of our land. Redefinitions of marriage are an instance where both secular law and religious truth are corrupted.

Jesus is not recorded as having explicitly condemned homosexuality, but this works against the revisionists in that he did clearly override the Mosaic writ of divorce. Silence can only be interpreted to mean affirmation of the traditional opposition. Further, the living Word is manifest both with the incarnation and the Gospels and with the entirety of inspired Scripture. The teachings of St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Timothy and St. Luke are also the teachings of Christ! That which is objectively true does not lose its binding force. We stand under God’s Word, not above it. The Pope and the bishops pass on the saving deposit; they cannot revoke or utterly change it. As much as they might want it to be otherwise, they do not have the authority to make homosexual acts good or acceptable before almighty God.

The Church has made an ardent appeal to natural law, especially to those who do not share our faith. We have seen this in reference to racial and ethnic inequality, artificial contraception, abortion and now homosexuality. Dissenting revisionists would have us do to our bodies what we would never do to our automobiles— there is a refusal to acknowledge the specifications of human design as that of two complementary genders. Men and women are made for each other. Homosexual sex would be like trying to run your car on molasses instead of gasoline. You are not going to get very far. Homosexual unions are not going to generate children. Cars filled with molasses are not going to be speeding down the highway— they will be stopped alongside the road, ruined for the purpose for which they were really made. Same sex unions often damage their bodies and health, resorting to parodies of the marital act, a feigned intercourse. Like jigsaw puzzles, the pieces are damaged and do not fit no matter how frustrated people try to force them.

Msgr. Pope rightly writes, “Whatever pressures many may wish to place on the Church to conform; however they may wish to ‘shame’ us into compliance by labeling us with adjectives such as bigoted, homophobic, or intolerant— we cannot comply with their demands.”

The civil rights won for ethnicity and gender would now be wrongly extended or ascribed to sexual orientation. Opposition of any form will be counted as discrimination. Within only a few generations, homosexuality has gone from being criminalized to being a “right” protected under law. Indeed, now the criminals would be those who oppose it. Do they see this as “pay-back” time? Here we find the bottom line and we must be prepared to pay a heavy price for any non-compliance. Try as we must to make a distinction between orientation and activity; the truth be said, gays increasingly spurn with impunity any such delineation. They argue, “Can you hate black skin without hating the black man? Can you view males as superior to females without belittling the gifts of women? Then how can you say that you hate the sin of homosexual sex while loving the person who defines himself by such intimacy?” We must be ready and careful in how we answer.

My priest friend cites the universal catechism:

[CCC 2357] Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

[CCC 2358] The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

[CCC 2359] Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

It is probable that there are many in the Church who wishes that our doctrine on human sexuality was different. However, we are constrained by Scripture, Tradition and the Natural Law. We must not usurp God’s authority. Illustrative of how want to play God on this issue, medical research has gone into how lesbians might clone or mix DNA through clinical intervention. It has been speculated that homosexual men might be augmented to allow them to carry a child in the linings of the stomach. Already, they seek adoption of children and IVF is routinely used for surrogates and lesbian insemination. Proponents are feverishly striving to make right that which is blatantly wrong.

As Christians we must accept the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman. It is a relationship that is to endure until the natural death of one of the spouses. The marital act which they share must always further the oneness of their union, promoting the fidelity of the spouses and (in type) open to procreation. Sexual congress outside of marriage is morally wrong and sinful. Thus, by definition, acts of masturbation, fornication and homosexuality are wrong and sinful. All sexual sin is serious, but certain sins are worse than others. Obviously, when another person is dragged down with us, the sin takes in the accomplice. Men and women who have sex outside of marriage do wrong, but as according to nature. Homosexual acts are not only wrong, but are counted as contrary to properly oriented human nature. Men and women who are not married are called to live chaste and virginal lives. Exceptions are NOT made for heterosexual couples planning to get married or for homosexuals who want to take platonic friendships to the so-called next level.

We should not hate homosexuals. We should avoid various forms of discrimination against them as persons. However, we can do nothing to support or enable a homosexual lifestyle. This is where we find the clash today. Oppose homosexuality and you are stamped as bigoted and hateful. There may even come a time when we will face hefty fines and even imprisonment. There have already been cases where people have been legally compelled to take re-education or sensitivity classes.

I have known a number of heroic homosexuals who embraced celibacy, living out their need for intimacy in the COURAGE community in terms of daily prayer, meditation and Christian service. We all need both to love and to be loved. COURAGE is an affiliation established by my cousin the late Fr. John Harvey. These men and women are wonderful witnesses and signs of contradiction to our hedonistic times. Sadly, they are ruthlessly attacked by other homosexuals. Despite negative charges, they do not betray who they are; rather, they affirm their identity and struggles while placing the weight on their Christian discipleship and obedience. They have not been abandoned by God or his Church. God’s grace can empower all who are disposed to his goodness and presence. We are all broken. We are all sinners. It is in Jesus that we find the beginnings of healing and our ultimate salvation.

If one would like to pursue an instructive bible study on this question, Msgr. Pope directs the reader to the following texts:

Genesis 19
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
Romans 1:18, 21
Matthew 15:19-20
1 Corinthians 6:9-20
Galatians 5:16-21
Ephesians 5:5-7
Colossians 3:5-6
1 Thessalonians 4:1-8
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Hebrews 13:4
Revelation 21:5-8; 22:14-16

Filed under: Apologetics, Catholic, Celibacy, Conscience, Faith, Forgiveness, Fornication, Homosexuality, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Reflection, Religion, Religious Liberty, Salvation, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | Leave a comment »

The Price of Compromising on Homosexuality

Posted on July 18, 2014 by Father Joe

A priest friend recently announced that he saw the Church’s way of speaking of those with same-sex attractions as wildly exaggerated, harsh and inaccurate. His assertion deeply bothered me. I am well aware that people have taken offense and even left the Church over the assessment that homosexuals and lesbians are sexually “disordered.” Often the response to this issue or individual revelations, even from pulpits, is a deafening silence. Homosexuality is joining contraception as one of those issues rarely raised from the pulpit. Privately, people increasing accept and love their friends, regardless. Young people not only accept it but see those who do not as bigoted. Older people are generally more judgmental, but often suspend this judgment when the gay person is someone close to them. Silence is no real answer and a fire-and-brimstone sermon will arouse anger and hurt. But the truth is the truth, is it not? My priest friend argues in a way that makes my head hurt. Often I think he is more like the Episcopalians, suggesting compromise on contraception, divorce and remarriage, and now homosexuality. As for myself, I have no desire to cause pain for others; however, I was ordained to speak for Christ and his Church, not for myself. The Bible and the traditions of the Church give a negative verdict to same-sex attraction and activity. While the orientation is problematical, sin only enters the picture with wrongful fantasies and immoral actions.

My priest colleague insists that I am very wrong. There is the unspoken insinuation that he thinks I am slow or a bit dull-witted. He wonders why I cannot see things his way. He argues that we all want to be faithful to Jesus and Jesus was all about bringing the outcast home. He indicts me as doing the opposite, behaving more like a Pharisee. He raises his voice, “Show me even one place in the Gospels where Jesus teaches anything about homosexuality! If it is so important, then why is Jesus absolutely silent about it?” He laments that our Lord spoke forcibly against divorce, but points out that there is nothing on this issue. My mind works differently from his. The Bible is more than the Gospels. The writings of St. Paul are also part of the New Testament. The whole book is the inspired Word of God. The apostle mentions homosexuality as one of a whole grocery list of sins that would forfeit the kingdom. This is serious language. If this is a sin that can land a person in hell; then how can we truly love them and either permit it or exhibit silence? He spoke as the kids do— “But they love each other! How can love ever be wrong?” Love can be plenty wrong. This was not just love, but physical and sexual behavior. This can be added to love, or express love, but love can be very wrong. You have no right to love another man’s wife. A priest has no right to love and keep a mistress. A man has no right to take another man to bed. The same goes for women with women. They can love as parent and child, as siblings, and as dear platonic friends— but erotic and genital love takes it where has no right to go. My priest friend came right out and said it, throwing aside recent papal teaching and the universal catechism, “As long as the gay couple is living in a loving and committed relationship, there is no sin, nothing is disordered.” This was not a new opinion. I heard it from one of my old professors some thirty years ago, Fr. Charles Curran. This was one of the dissenting views that cost him his license and position at the Catholic University of America.

My position is very different. I would side with my late cousin, Fr. John Harvey, the founder of an organization called COURAGE. These faithful sons and daughters deal with their disorder not by acting out but by embracing a life of celibate love, prayerful meditation and service to the community. We should not pretend that vice is virtue. Rather, we should call our brothers to repentance, conversion and heroic discipleship.

It is true that a person should not be judged by one element of his life. However, the activists themselves are the ones who raise their orientation as the singular marker for their identity. An orientation and lifestyle is redrafted as a basic expression of who they are and as something protected by civil rights laws. When you say “hate the sin” but “love the sinner,” they get mad and take it personally. They make no demarcation between their sexuality and how they are accepted as persons. They are wrong to do this but it has become an effective tool for manipulating people and institutions in our society. When it comes to the Catholic Church, though, they bust their heads against a stone wall. Everyone else is giving in, but the Church still says that “what they do” is wrong. What they hear from the Church is “who you are” is wrong. I suspect my brother priest left his guard down to this sort of control tactic. They seek to turn the guilt back on us so that the Church will give in. While we can show special compassion to individuals, I see no way for Catholicism to backtrack on this.

Filed under: Apologetics, Archdiocese, Bible, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Commandments, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Hell, Homosexuality, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pope, Reflection, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 4 Comments »

Marriage & Willingness for Children

Posted on April 2, 2014 by Father Joe

QUESTION (Deirdre):

I was diagnosed as bi-polar when I was 15 years old. I have been on medication for the last 16 years to control my disease. I have always wanted children; however, as I mature, I have realized that being on medication while pregnant is not wise. Neither would I want to bring a child into a situation that could be potentially unstable. So recently, I have been thinking about whether or not I should indeed have a child. If this is the course of action I choose to take, is it accurate that in the eyes of the Church I should never be allowed to get married, to share my life with someone, or enjoy the marital bed all because I chose not to have children?

RESPONSE:

I know bi-polar people who have children and do quite well. You are correct that there are certain medications that can make pregnancy problematical. I have seen this especially with paranoid schizophrenics. As for your question, unless you are married then it is entirely academic as you cannot morally have children as a single person. The Church views marriage as having two purposes: the propagation of the human race and the fidelity of the spouses. Older couples might be infertile but they can still get married. The marital act must still be that type of act that generates new human life even if such an eventuality is unlikely or impossible. Younger couples must want to have children in order to get married in the Church. The priest will ask this question as part of the prenuptial investigation. Rejecting the possibility makes marriage impossible. Indeed, if there is deceit about this, it is grounds for the annulment of a bond. Depending how long you wait to get married, the issue may become academic as the clock is always ticking on female fertility. You can be happy unmarried and there are joys other than those of the marriage bed.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Contraception, Discipleship, Family, Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Questions, Religious, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Question 2 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 24, 2013 by Father Joe

2. Marriage according to the Natural Law

a) What place does the idea of the natural law have in the cultural areas of society: in institutions, education, academic circles and among the people at large? What anthropological ideas underlie the discussion on the natural basis of the family?

It has been replaced by juridical fiction. Man has made himself the “almighty” master of his relationships and God is allowed no say. Same-sex unions immediately imply that the male-female scenario is no longer viewed as absolute. Natural law implies intelligent design and order. Such runs smack into the face of modern subjectivism and relativism. We still hear parodies of the natural law as when Christians find humour in saying that God made “Adam and Eve” not “Adam and Steve.” But there is not much depth to arguments. Certain academics will appeal to natural law; indeed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote a brilliant paper showing how natural law invalidated claims on behalf of slavery. However, the accolades he won were lost when he showed how the same principles could be applied to the personhood of the unborn against abortion. Anthropologists are now quick to point to past aberrations of homosexuality to show a degree or normalcy that does not really exist. They will also argue that one worldview should not be given preference over another and despise the work of Christian missionaries in changing the values and practices of indigenous societies. This would even include attempts to stamp out polygamy.

b) Is the idea of the natural law in the union between a man and a woman commonly accepted as such by the baptized in general?

Heterosexuals still see the immediacy of natural law with their unions and offspring. However, even here they are compromised by the rampant use of artificial contraception. The marital act is separated from its natural ends. The argument is that women are no longer restricted or in bondage to their biology.

c) How is the theory and practice of natural law in the union between man and woman challenged in light of the formation of a family? How is it proposed and developed in civil and Church institutions?

We can talk about such matters in the context of past history but the current trajectory of these questions is something else entirely. The family unit was a building block to a stable society and crucial for civilization. Some experts speak from a type of pragmatism, saying that large families were only desirable when there were high mortality rates or when children become free employment in family businesses. Such reasoning would contend that small families are now the ideal, for population control or environmental issues. Church and society at large safeguarded the traditional family. Today the notion of family is so elastic that it is hard to define. Indeed, it is still evolving. Obviously the nuclear family is not the same as the extended families of Jesus’ day. But now households increasingly have one parent (usually the mother) or two men playing father or two women playing mother. While polygamy is currently against the law, as is pederasty, both are being challenged in the courts. In practice, without benefit of a contract, multiple men and women are already living together in partnerships that cross all gender lines without limits. I suspect we shall see unions of three or more people in civil marriages within the near future. Islam already permits such unions, at least for a man with several wives.

d) In cases where non-practicing Catholics or declared non-believers request the celebration of marriage, describe how this pastoral challenge is dealt with?

Non-Catholics cannot be married before a priest or deacon. There must be at least one practicing Catholic for a marriage, or at least a Catholic who is willing to reform. It would make no sense to witness the marriages of Catholics who have committed apostasy and would otherwise want no part of the Church. While such a scenario might be judged unlikely, it does come up. The pressure from parents and the beauty of a church building are enticements for such a request. When the priest says no, the upset is incalculable. But sometimes you have to say no. Nine times out of ten they will also refuse to take part in the marriage preparation. They will then ask if they can rent the church and bring in the local priestess from the Church of the Real Absence down the street. Again, the answer is no. They can repent and reform their lives or they can continue on their way.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Question 3 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 24, 2013 by Father Joe

3. The Pastoral Care of the Family in Evangelization

a) What experiences have emerged in recent decades regarding marriage preparation? What efforts are there to stimulate the task of evangelization of the couple and of the family? How can an awareness of the family as the “domestic Church” be promoted?

It seems to me that marriage preparation is frequently too little too late. The class or classes become streamlined so that an obligation might be checked off the list. It seems to me that a successful program would cover basic Christian anthropology and would be so challenging that some couples would even decide not to get married or to continue relationships. We do not want to rubberstamp bad choices or assist people in going through the motions. There is already too much of this with our children. The Archdiocese has standards for catechesis but the guidelines have no teeth and are not binding for advancement. 60% was regarded as passing and yet in my book that rates a failing grade. Are we doing the same with marriage preparation programs? Many dioceses are also pushing off the responsibility to external groups or to individual parishes. But there is no mandated accreditation for these efforts. Some even seem to cloud the truth. For instance, methods of NFP might be taught. However, even NFP is immoral if practiced to avoid pregnancy. It can only be permitted for the spacing of births or to get pregnant. The exclusion of openness to procreation in the marital act is wrong and sinful. Do our couples know this? Are they getting NFP instruction? And is that instruction trustworthy? Hopefully the Theology of the Body plays a large part of such efforts. Catholics should appreciate the sacramental nature of marriage as a covenant established and renewed between themselves and the Lord. A love and passion for persons should be given preference over disorientation or the poison of lust and selfishness. They need to see the family as the little church.

Beyond content, I am also worried about timing. Instruction about marriage and moral human sexuality (not just a biology class) must begin early enough so that mistakes will not be blindly embraced in the dating scene. Courtship should be taught over the popular dating efforts in modern society. The truth that sex belongs only to marriage should be emphasized and witnessed by others. Catholics should also be encouraged to reserve their courtship to Catholics. When a Catholic dates a non-Catholic, we should not hesitate or be embarrassed to emphasize the faith and the joy of conversion to the truth. Such marriages still require dispensations. Maybe we should require RCIA for mixed marriages and require a year or more waiting period? If the husband and father is head of the home, it is only fitting that he should be the religious head. If he is not a Catholic, then this is compromised. Similarly the mother and wife should have a Catholic sense taken from the model of the Blessed Mother. A non-believer would not have this benefit. Marriages to Protestants might sometimes be tolerated. Marriages to Jews and especially Moslems should be strenuously discouraged. It is best not to date such persons. I am not arguing for an absolute prohibition but there should be a clear mutual agreement that the children will be raised as Catholics. Such is for the good of faith, for the Catholic party and the children. I really think we have to rethink how we do things in our secular and diverse culture.

b) How successful have you been in proposing a manner of praying within the family which can withstand life’s complexities and today’s culture?

What is the measure of such success? People do not always share the intimacies of their spiritual lives. I have urged that we talk with God and that if we love someone then we want to know as much as possible about them. Prayer is a two-way communication that enhances and makes real our personal and corporate relationship with Jesus. I put together a small book for parishioners which speaks briefly about the meaning and variety of prayer; I list important devotional works that are part of our Catholic heritage; and I reproduce some traditional prayers. We live in a busy age, but we must make time for prayer, even if only short aspirations. Parishioners asked for and took the little book. Hopefully, along with my pastoral teaching it made some small difference. We instigated the Traveling Madonna (to pray for marriages and the right to life) and the Traveling Chalice (to pray for priests and vocations). I have urged families to set up prayer spaces or shrines in their homes; to consecrate their homes to the Sacred Heat and to have house blessings. I have suggested that couples have a pattern of prayer into which they can later introduce their children. Hopefully, they have taken all this to heart. Trying to transmit our faith and values can be frustrating. One sometimes wonders if any difference was made. But God does not demand that we be successful, only faithful.

c) In the current generational crisis, how have Christian families been able to fulfil their vocation of transmitting the faith?

You cannot give what you do not possess. The leaders of the Church played the part of the ostrich with its head in the sand. It was pretended that everything was going well while the house of cards was collapsing all around us. Many only became alert to the problem in the face of an aging demographic and a shortage of funds. If 75% of our people no longer participate at Sunday Mass, I think it is safe to say that the faith is not being transmitted to the next generation. Many are baptized and remain uncatechised. We can no longer count Catholics on the basis of sacraments received. Even among those practicing their faith, it is hard to light a fire for the faith. Parents are supposed to be the chief religious educators of their children, but practicing Catholics increasingly relinquish this role to the schools or to once-a-week catechesis. It just does not work. Past poor catechesis from the 1960’s and 70’s still haunts us. Adults cannot pass on or transmit what they do not have. There are several lost generations. Every Catholic family, no matter whether they use a parochial school or parish-based program, should be in essence a home-schooling family when it comes to our Catholic religion. It is not enough to do homework and count on others. Religious faith and values should be studied every night without exception. Indeed, the habit of study should remain with our people so that as adults they will continue to explore the depths of our holy faith. But such is right now rarely the case.

d) In what way have the local Churches and movements on family spirituality been able to create ways of acting which are exemplary?

I think such efforts are few and far between. Certainly young adults and teen groups are sometimes the source of religious education, prayer and worship. Small faith-sharing groups were once popular, but some authorities became concerned about the quality of materials and what was being taught. The Rosary remains a staple and the Stations of the Cross are important during Lent. Parishes offer Eucharistic Adoration. Charismatic prayer groups still exist although they seem less prevalent than a few years ago. They also suffered from too much dependence on lay prayer leaders, some of whom became overly intrusive into the personal lives of members. I would encourage the restoration of traditional efforts like the Holy Name Society, Sodalities, and the spiritual works of fraternal organizations like the Knights of Columbus.

e) What specific contribution can couples and families make to spreading a credible and holistic idea of the couple and the Christian family today?

First, we must resist the modern temptation to clericalize the laity with all sorts of Church ministries. Second, everything should be done to foster family life and values. (Catholics and other Christians should refrain from shopping on Sundays and spend time at home. This will also allow believers to be with their families and to be able to worship instead of working. We need to safeguard the Lord’s Day better than we have lately. Third, priests should consecrate the homes of couples in faithful marriages, reinforcing the sanctity of the home and urging them to keep negative elements outside their doors. Fourth, couples should stay together despite the obstacles and treat their fertility as a great blessing to be fulfilled with joy. In other words, love each other, have babies, work hard, and go to Mass. It really is no secret.

f) What pastoral care has the Church provided in supporting couples in formation and couples in crisis situations?

I will speak more about this in later questions, but feel that marriage preparation should be more than a quick Pre-Cana class. Marriage is a life-time commitment. Maybe it needs something more akin to the RCIA? Too often halls are rented and gowns are bought before the couple calls the priest. We need to turn this agenda around. While there are special programs to help hurting marriages; we also need a pool of professional counsellors who would be on call at modest cost to assist couples in struggling marriages. These counsellors should have the mind of the Church. Secular counsellors often see little or no value in permanence and quickly urge clients to separate and terminate relationships.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Conscience, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Patheos, Photos, Pro-Life, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Question 5 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 24, 2013 by Father Joe

5. On Unions of Persons of the Same Sex

a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?

Yes, such is the case in many states and the Bishops and the Maryland Catholic Conference lost the fight in Maryland despite an aggressive Marriage Matters campaign.

b) What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?

There is a real culture war and increased tension between conservative and liberal churches. Prince George’s is heavily Democratic and yet the voters just barely opposed the same-sex legislation. However, the high numbers in favour in other areas like Baltimore and Montgomery County carried the day for those proposing same-sex marriages. The Black churches leaned against the proposal while the liberal white churches and reformed synagogues were in favour. The Episcopal churches also largely supported the change.

c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?

That is the question right now, is it not? The Pope’s assertion about who is he to judge has fuelled speculation of a shift in attitude in the Catholic Church toward homosexuals. My late cousin (Fr. John Harvey) was the founder of COURAGE, an organization that urged homosexuals to embrace celibate love, service to others and prayer. He took a great deal of ridicule from the renegade DIGNITY group that argued for the acceptance of homosexual acts. We can urge them to go regularly to confession and Mass. But it seems to me that we cannot rubberstamp sin. Complicating the issue, homosexuals identify themselves chiefly by their orientation. Thus they reject the “hate the sin but love the sinner” scenario. They contend that if you judge “how they love” then you judge them and that this is hate speech.

d) In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?

Boston and Washington, DC shut down their adoption services. What else can we do? I fail to see how we might deliberately place children into homosexual and lesbian households. There may be no pastoral answer that suffices. Having said this, other organizations are going to make this happen. Lesbians are also going to get themselves inseminated (they often abort male children). If they come to us it seems that we should reach out to them with compassion and understanding of human weakness and the need for love. Life is messy and we may have to get our hands dirty. Some situations are going to defy correction or fixing. News stories of parochial schools firing lesbian teachers or expelling children with “two daddies or two mommies” only seems to make matters worse. But how should we proceed?

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pope Francis, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

A Rebuttal to Sex and the Single Priest

Posted on December 5, 2013 by Father Joe

THE NEW YORK TIMES, December 1, 2013

Sex and the Single Priest by BILL KELLER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How a Celibate Priest Looks at Women

Posted on October 13, 2013 by Father Joe

Friends have joked from time to time that I seem shy in public. What they mean is that I tend to look at the ground. I am not the only priest who does this. What they interpret as shyness is something more or quite deliberate. Many of us were taught or picked up from other priests what was commonly called a concern for the “custody of the eyes.” The proverb is quite true that “the eyes are the windows to the soul.” Men are both visual and tactile. We like to see and to touch. This starts with childhood. A little boy sees a cookie and his eyes open wide with delight and he immediately reaches for it, even if it is forbidden by his mother because it will spoil his supper. The man appreciates that there are sweeter delights than cookies and candy. The hormones kick in, we pass through puberty, and suddenly we are all eyes and maybe hands for the girls. Women might be drawn to the fact that a priest is one man who does not treat them as a sexual object. He is regarded as safe and as a spiritual man. This is as it should be. The priest wants to save souls, and in this he must regard men and women as the same. More than this, he must give every woman the same regard— young and old, smart and dull, fat or skinny, attractive or ugly, etc. He must look upon them with the eyes of Christ. Nevertheless, the priest is still a man.

I recall that one sensitive woman became hurt because the local priest seemed to have time and eyes for everyone but her. He would glance at her and look away when he talked. She complained that he did not like her. The woman was quite wrong. He liked her very much, too much. The priest thought she was intensely attractive. He looked away so that he might not look her over, up and down. Women can also become upset if they should notice or suspect that a priest (like other men) is devouring them with his eyes. Flattery for one is deep disappointment for another. The priest is concerned about such impressions. He is also worried about his own soul. That is one of the reasons why I (along with many other priests) avoid beaches and public pools. Scantily clothed women make the proper custody of the eyes almost impossible. These images linger in the mind and what enters the mind can quickly move to the imagination.

Priests face many hurdles, but by the grace of God we remain strong and resilient. Celibacy is but one area of challenge but it is a crucial one if we want to continue as shepherds of Christ’s flock. We are faithful, obedient and do our duty.

As a priest mindful of his duty, I am drawn to Robert Frost’s Poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” A stanza reads:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | 12 Comments »

Priestly Celibacy: A Truth Some Discover the Hard Way

Posted on October 13, 2013 by Father Joe

A number of years ago, I had regular association with seminarians. As a young priest, I discovered certain truths which I lamented were not shared with me in my own formation. I passed them on to these good men. The most pressing of these revelations was that the seminarian and priest had less to fear from the bad girl as they did from the good one. Clergy are religious men, generally turned off by overt seduction, fragrant immodesty and sexual vulgarity. However, their hearts are very vulnerable to the woman whose piety is reflective of their own. A pretty girl who loves the Church and the priesthood can very quickly start loving one particular priest. Priests are men and their temptation is ironically found in their seriousness. A religious woman, modest and demure, will come to the priest for spiritual guidance and the sacraments. She will be the first to volunteer and the last to go home. She will sympathize with the priest and defend him against his critics. She never misses Mass and expresses how she is deeply moved and enriched by his preaching. In short, if priests could marry, she is everything he could ever want. He seeks, within the sphere of ministry, to be a father-figure and spiritual physician for her soul; but according to nature, a part of him begins to long for physical intimacy with her, for a shared life, and for a home where he could claim her as wife and mother to his children. The priest has no choice but to minister to her and other women like her. We cannot neglect the very ones most drawn to the faith. However, the priest must be honest about his emotions and very circumspect about his actions. He must not fool himself— this woman is dangerous to his vocation as a celibate priest. And he might pose a threat to her. No excuses can be tolerated so that he can spend more time to be near her. The priest needs to focus less on friendship with such a woman and more upon his duty to her as a priest. His energies must not be directed exclusively toward her. His promise mandates that as a priest, he should remain morally strong, for his own sake, for hers and for the larger believing community. Along with others, he gives her the sacraments; but he should not go out of his way to give her special favors and gifts. The Eucharist is enough for her; anything more constitutes the beginnings of flirtation. He might presume that she is safe with him; certainly more so than with other men who would quickly take advantage of her. But he is lying to himself and placing them both at risk. Unchecked, one day they notice their eyes upon one another and there comes the full awakening of what they have done. He holds her hand or gives her a quick embrace or maybe they even share a tender kiss, and a boundary line is crossed. It is still not too late but to break it off now will wound them both, possibly for a lifetime. He could have spared them both something of this pain. Some priests will leave ministry and if there is marriage, the woman will always carry guilt. She will think, “Did I cost the Church the services of a good priest? Did I selfishly steal him for myself?” If the priest makes distance, then they will be haunted by a love unfulfilled and a friendship that was needlessly destroyed by their weakness. There is a lesson learned. Sometimes you cannot be with the person you love. You cannot have everything you want. We usually associate love with presence and union; however, there is a sacrificial love that lets go or surrenders the beloved. Many priests have had this experience and can say, even many years later, “I loved her so much, I let her go.” Such a business can take a man to the Cross. One priest confided that he accidentally ran into a girl that he had fallen in love with over a quarter of a century earlier. It tore him up inside but he made distance from her to preserve his priesthood and to protect her honor. She was very cordial and introduced him to her husband and children. He tried desperately to keep tears from his eyes. Afterwards he was visibly shaking. Although older he thought she was still beautiful. All his old feelings returned and he spent the night in tears. He realized that he still loved her, that he would always love her. She could have been his. Her children could have been his children. But they went their separate ways. She was happy and had her family. What did he have? Hopefully he would look upon his years of priesthood with a sense of accomplishment and joy. Quickly as possible he needed to shrug off the ghost of unexplored potentialities. The fact that he had not ruined her life should have given him a degree of peace. He did the right thing, for both of them.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | 4 Comments »

Priestly Celibacy: In Order to Be Loved, We Need to Love

Posted on October 12, 2013 by Father Joe

If the priest feels he has no one who really loves him, he may respond in kind and stop loving. When this happens the priest begins to die. The very meaning of his celibacy and priestly service is as a formula of loving. He should realize the love of Christ on the altar and upon the Cross. Just as muscles weaken with inactivity, a priest’s spiritual heart atrophies if he avoids loving. This can also happen with priest-transfers. It hurts to constantly make friends and then move on. He might reach a stage where he stops loving those around him so as to avoid being hurt again. Complicating the situation is the general understanding of love. The word has too many definitions and yet, in practice, is often immediately and popularly equated with romantic situations. The priest (and the Church he serves) must allow himself to explore the myriad colors of love that are in sync with his vocation as a celibate priest. The issue of scandal, first with defections for relationships with women and second with a failure to adequately protect children, has precipitated a forced dissipation in the priest’s fatherly associations. In the tradition of Don Bosco and Father Flanagan, priests interceded for the needs of children and spent time with them. The ever tightening policies and fear of litigation have stripped the priest of this sacred trust and have thus diminished both his effective value and his satisfaction from ministry. The circle of religious brothers and sisters, as well as other priests, has been devastated by the diminutive nature of current vocations. Like a bubble that has popped, he is no longer surrounded by these supportive relations. The general air of hospitality and volunteerism exhibited in parochial settings has been increasingly strained by recriminations and suspicion toward clergy. The priest is no longer welcome in every home and those that do extend invitations might seek to link their generosity to a manipulative favor, often to the detriment of another parishioner. When the pastor fails to comply or refuses to share secrets that fuel gossip, he is summarily dismissed, never to cross their threshold again, barring the possibility of last rites. Even requests for sick calls are fewer than in the past and are frequently redirected to extraordinary ministers.

Eros is denied the priest, at least in its extreme and consensual manifestation; but also weakened are paternal love and fraternal love. Society as a whole and the Church authorities strip away the priest’s supports leaving little or nothing to replace them. It is no wonder the married-priest movement is picking up steam. Platters are becoming empty and priests are hungry for friendship and sharing love.

Nevertheless, with all the contemporary hurdles, most celibate priests are happy, even if increasingly lonely. They find real and sustaining satisfaction from prayer and worship. While they take care of many, there is an indescribable delight over the absolution given individual sinners. God has entrusted them with the authority to forgive transgressions, great and small. With a gesture and a few words, they can steal the damned from the devil. They have power over hell. Never in the history of the world had Almighty God given such power to men as he did to his priests. He can draw God down from heaven and place him upon the altar as our food and he can plant his Spirit and grace into human hearts, transforming a sinner into a saint. Good priests are always in awe of that with which God has entrusted them.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »