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.
A lot has been reported about former Vice President Joe Biden being refused Holy Communion at St. Anthony Catholic Church in Florence, South Carolina on Sunday because of his permissive public stance toward the aborting of unborn children. Such liturgical matters are preferably left private between a person and his church. However, the priest fulfilled his moral duty precisely because Biden is a celebrity and such matters are immediately reported by the media. If he were an ordinary churchgoer in the parish it is likely the priest would not know his stance against human life and he would have received the sacrament; yes, even though it would have convicted him secretly and spiritually before Christ. Similarly, if his views were only known to his priest confessor, that priest would have been required to give him the Eucharist so as not to violate the seal of confession. But given this situation, as a politician he not only adds his votes among others but is an active enabler for the murder of human beings (a truth which he supposedly believes in “personally”). More monstrous than those who deny the humanity of the unborn are those like Biden that straddle the fence. On one hand he says that he agrees with Church teaching and personally opposes abortion; on the other he refuses to impose his moral views upon others and politically enables what he evidently understands to be the murder of human beings. Really, many of us have a hard time believing this? Like the famous video of so-called “Catholic” politicians in New York laughing and applauding legislation to allow nine-month pregnant women to abort their babies— any faith they say they have is feigned, soured, not real— you cannot serve two masters. You should not make yourself available to receive the bread of life while eagerly helping to feed children to demons.
He does not have to respond to reporters about the incident because his actions and kowtowing to Planned Parenthood speaks volumes. Rev. Robert Morey said afterwards, “Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden. Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching. As a priest, it is my responsibility to minister to those souls entrusted to my care, and I must do so even in the most difficult situations. I will keep Mr. Biden in my prayers.”
The priest denied him the sacrament because he knew that it would bring down God’s judgment upon him. The priest acted out of love, not enmity. He also knew that the occasion had been politicized. Every photo of Biden receiving Holy Communion falsely advertised that he was a good Catholic and that he and his views had the endorsement of the Church.
What Does the Church have to Say?
The following three citations have been heavily informative to my approach to the question of politicians and the reception of Holy Communion.
Canon 915 states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2002:“Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
Cardinal Francis Arinze stated in 2004: “The norm of the church is clear, the church exists in the United States— there are bishops there, let them interpret it.” When asked if a priest should withhold communion to an “unambiguously pro-abortion” politician, he answered, “Yes.” “If the person should not receive communion, then he should not be given it.”
Priests under Pressure
Priests who are commanded by their Ordinaries never to withhold the sacrament are being told not to love as they should and to be silent in the face of the “holocaust” of innocents. Indeed, they are censured for making comparisons or allusions to other forms of mass murder or genocide. Policies, written and verbal, instruct parish priests that they must NEVER refer to one politician as pro-abortion and another as pro-life in homilies. They came speak generally about values but not to make matters personal. The impression is that we do not want to upset people. We do not want to appear as partisan. We do not want to see an attendance drop or loss in revenue. The subject is far deeper than what canon law stipulates. The passivity and silence of bishops on this matter of giving communion to pro-abortion politicians is systemic of the same malaise that condones silence and ineffective action against active homosexuals and pedophiles among the priests and bishops. When we should be champions of the truth; we hide behind lawyers and employ the verbiage of misdirection. We have made ourselves hypocrites when we should be sentinels for Christ. Called to a courageous faith and to take up crosses in following Jesus; too many are afraid and seek to play it safe. Priests are intimidated and threatened to be quiet and not to act. There are even rumors that despite the encouragement of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, policies are being assembled that will further restrict the actions of good priests but will also erase their proclamations on social media. Most dioceses stipulate that priests cannot give media interviews and must relay requests to chanceries. I suspect some of these fearful upper Church authorities were those that looked the other way when it came to the ravaging upheaval of rogue bishops like McCarrick, Bransfield and others. Claiming to respect the sanctity of life and then shutting down practical initiatives to save babies will not wash with God and will one day be condemned by those who judge the wrongs of history. There will be no hiding.
What is a True Disciple of Christ?
Biden has stated, “I’m a practicing Catholic. I practice my faith, but I’ve never let my religious beliefs, which I accept based on Church doctrine . . . impose . . . on other people.” This is essentially nonsensical. Although supported in the past, he has now denounced even the Hyde amendment. Catholic faith must always be lived out in obedience to the law of God and in a love of the Lord that is realized in charity. Christianity is not tolerant of immorality or sin. Freedom is not license but fidelity to the truth. Faithfulness is more than sitting oneself in a pew once a week; it is also taking the Christian kerygma or Good News in mission to the world around us. Pope John Paul II defined this message as the Gospel of Life. We are to convert the world, not to allow the world to convert us. We are to bring Christ’s light to the culture of death where we find ourselves. A believer is to be a person of strong character. His faith and values has importance in the lives of others; compromise is a failure to truly believe and definitely to love others. While the sanctity of life is constitutive of the Gospel, the issue of abortion is more than a sectarian issue; it is a human rights concern . . . none of us has the liberty to kill or to enable the termination of innocent human beings. How can we say AMEN to the hidden presence of Jesus in the Eucharist when we deny the hidden presence of the child in the womb made in his image?
Facing Ambiguity and Opposition
Those who possibly think differently on this matter have also been reported in the news.
Pope Francis, has attacked abortion in the harshest terms, equating efforts at abortion to mobs “hiring a hit man.” He is clearly defining it as murder. However, he has also intimated that communion should not be withheld from practicing Catholics based on what they do and do not believe. He wrote in 2013, “The Eucharist . . . is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” What he gives, he takes away. The Holy Father’s efforts at ambiguity continue.
Cardinal Wuerl stated years ago in reference to Speaker Pelosi that he disagreed with holding back communion to manifestly pro-abortion politicians which he equated as “Communion wielded as a weapon.” “We never – the Church just didn’t use Communion this way. It wasn’t a part of the way we do things, and it wasn’t a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people. There’s a question about whether this canon [915] was ever intended to be used.” He stated: “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.” Back in 2009, Cardinal Wuerl said that he thought “we’ve been making progress” in conveying the pro-life message to the Democratic Party and that “There was just a setback with the distraction of Communion.” However, today the party’s pro-life representation in national government is now all but extinguished. This essentially continued the policy of Cardinal McCarrick in Washington. We may remember the infamous memo presented to the USCCB by Cardinal McCarrick which essentially falsified and reversed the message from Cardinal Ratzinger.
Cardinal Cupich bluntly dismisses the mandate of canon 915 in a rather defeatist manner, “I think it would be counterproductive to impose sanctions, simply because they don’t change anybody’s minds.”
Past USCCB advisor John Carr asserted that “it’s a big loss for our faith and for our church, either way, when the Eucharist becomes a source of division instead of unity. In my view, denying communion to people for their public stances is bad theology, bad pastoral practice and bad politics.”
Faithful America is an organization demanding that Fr. Morey’s bishop force him to apologize to Biden and immediately direct all other priests not to deny communion based on politics. “When hate groups purport to speak for Christianity, we act. We challenge the Catholic hierarchy in the United States to live up to the inspiring words of Pope Francis and we stick up for courageous Christian voices for fairness and freedom in every denomination.” (But is the killing of children just a political issue or is it a HUMAN RIGHTS issue?)
I posted some time back that I was distressed that the Holy Father would constantly bombard with insults men who earnestly struggled to be good and faithful priests. It was my hope that the pendulum was finally and decisively moving to the other side with the papal letter to priests on the 160th anniversary of the death of the Curé of Ars. Indeed, I even printed a copy for myself feeling that these encouraging words from the heart of Pope Francis were long overdue. But I guess old ways are hard to change.
Why would Pope Francis admit in public that he feels it is an honor to be attacked by Americans, when the most critical voices profess genuine loyalty to him and only beseech clarity and orthodoxy from the Holy See? Does he not understand that he has disparaged a church that has endured vile bigotry, fought back dissent, defended the sanctity of life even against her own, and is even now in a knock down fight with a modernity that has already vanquished much of Europe? Unmatched by any other entity except for maybe the U.S. government, the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Charities reaches out a helping hand in charity and proclaims a message of freedom— not asking for thanks— but deserving at the very least a certain level of recognition and respect. The Vatican would be in a shambles and there would be no “Peter’s Pence” if Americans did not shove money into the papal pockets as fast as the Pope took it out.
American Catholics love the Holy Father. While many of our brethren have fallen away, there are still millions of us who keep the faith even when it takes us to the cross. As for the priesthood, we have our share of sinners and saints, but most of our men daily lay down their lives for their flocks. They try to help people while not compromising the Gospel. This is not rigidity but an effort at humble service rooted in charity and in truth. We preach both repentance and the forgiveness of sins. If we pamper sin we might make friends and even fill a few more pews, but the lie would deny salvation to souls and make us accomplices in sin. This is not the form of accompaniment demanded by Christ.
My priest colleague and old friend, Msgr. Charles Pope has an ever widening media footprint and he has taken some negative feedback recently for saying that which needs to be said. Knowing him and his profound loyalty to Christ and to the holy pontiff, it must have been the most painful statement of his life.
The Holy Father stated:
“I would like to emphasize an attitude that I do not like, because it does not come from God: rigidity. Today it is fashionable, I do not know about here, but in other parts of the world it is fashionable, to find rigid people. Young, rigid priests, who want to save with rigidity, perhaps, I don’t know, but they take this attitude of rigidity and sometimes – excuse me – from the museum. They are afraid of everything, they are rigid. Be careful, and know that under any rigidity there are serious problems.”
Monsignor Charles Pope wrote on social media:
“Santo Padre, I’m not feeling the love here, I don’t feel accompanied by you. Make room in your heart for me and others like me. I am not a young priest, but I know you don’t like my type of priesthood. Further I am an American and this mere fact seems to also make me troublesome in your eyes. I am not afraid of everything as you state, but I do have concerns for the ambiguity of some of your teachings and severity of some of your actions. Yet when we, your less favored sons, ask you questions, you will not answer or clarify. In all this I am still your son and share the priesthood of Jesus with you. I await the solicitude and gentle care from you that you say I, and others like me, lack. Meanwhile I must honestly and painfully say that I am wearied from being scorned and demonized by you. Respectfully, Carlo.”
If there should be any backlash for such courageous honesty, I hope it will be measured by justice and respect for the truth. The saints are weeping.
We read: “The pope said that ‘nowadays it is fashionable to hurl adjectives’ in what’s tantamount to ‘a culture of insults.’ He recommended responding ‘to malice with goodness.'”
It is public knowledge that the Holy Father has hurled many insults, especially at many whom are largely regarded as faithful priests and even bishops. If such is the case, then why is he surprised if some should return them or even try to laugh through their tears with humor? The humility of Pope Benedict was rooted in his intellectual life and prayer. Yet the world hated this gentle and ascetic man (careful with his words) as much as it seems to love the provocative and outgoing Pope Francis, who like President Trump, says what he wants without a filter.
My intention is not to foster scandal. This is merely a cry in the wilderness. The Pope’s words (unfortunately) speak for themselves:
The CLERGY have been called “vain butterflies,” “smarmy idolaters,” “priest-tycoons,” “animals,” “new Pharisees,” and “confessional torturers!”
The CURIA has been labeled “the leprosy of the papacy.”
SEMINARIANS, especially the traditionally-minded have been targeted as “potential little monsters.”
NUNS who preferred the older disciplines and vestiture were criticized as “uninspiring old maids.”
TRADITIONALISTS were censured as “museum mummies.”
While the Holy Father has made powerful efforts to reach out to those who feel estranged from the Church and those in irregular unions, he is less friendly toward REGULAR CHURCH-GOERS in the pews. He calls them “pickled pepper-faced Christians,” “closed, sad, trapped Christians,” “defeated Christians,” “liquid Christians,” “creed-reciting, parrot Christians,” and “watered-down faith, weak-hoped Christians.”
JOURNALISTS do not escape but are insulted as “fomenters of coprophagia!” If Trump has his fake news, the Pope has literally referred to his dogs eating feces.
So I agree with the Pope, enough with the insults… all around.
In fear and trembling… pledging obedience… a faithful but derided son.
The traditional Christian view is that homosexual acts are grievously sinful. This was expressed recently by Vice President Pence and it precipitated an immediate response from the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. Making an assessment of his own same-sex “marriage” to Chasten Glezman, he states: “Being married to Chasten has made me a better human being because it has made me more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent. My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes, Mr. Vice President (Pence), it has moved me closer to God.”
What should be the response of a traditional Christian who is well aware that the revelation of God in Scripture and in creation, itself, stipulates that homosexuality is a grievous sin and that it can cost us a share in Christ’s kingdom? Some churchmen contend that the Church herself can overrule the testimony from the Bible; however, the Pope and Magisterium may interpret Scripture and Tradition but do not have the authority to revoke or reverse revealed doctrines.
Some authorities claim that the harsh stand against homosexuality in the Bible reflects not the mind of God but the bigotry of men. If this be entirely the case then the whole question of biblical inerrancy is called into question. What is or is not inspired by God then becomes dubious.
Some authorities assert that there are certain teachings and practices in the Bible and in the life of the Church where we see a development over time in our understanding, as with the institution of slavery. While this is true, critics would quickly add that such development must be organic or natural (as when various biblical themes interplay against each other) and cannot be forced. Those who would promote a radical anti-patriarchal feminism have sought to fabricate a new divine archetype. There is a return to the goddess or the Lord (in some cases) is viewed less as a man and more as an androgynous human. Could the God proposed by Buttigieg be of this sort— a deity fashioned precisely for homosexuals? The problem in both cases is the forfeiture of what is real and the substitution of human fancy. While there are subjective elements to our discipleship, Catholic Christianity demands attention for what is objectively real. This is a necessary symptom of our belief in the incarnation and resurrection. Either Jesus is God made man or we are still in our sins. Only God has the power to save us. Either Jesus rose from the dead or we are the greatest of fools who will be soon forgotten in our graves. None of this can be left to empty myth or to a sentimental feeling or to a drunken hallucination. Either the story of salvation is true or we are lost and the Gospel is a lie.
If he has not fashioned a new god, could it be that Buttigieg is ignorant of his deity’s demands? Could he be in psychological denial as to what the Judeo-Christian faith and its deity demand? Could he have bought into the notion that biblical moral teachings are somewhat capricious and that all that matters is that we try to be “kind” or “compassionate” or “nice”? Some politicians think that they can legislate morality at will to satisfy their current agenda. Unless one has the gift of reading souls, no one can truly know whether Buttigieg is closer to God or not. This is despite the fact that those of us who believe in an objective order would insist that homosexual acts constitute the matter of mortal sin. How can one be close to God if one has severed his personal and communal relationship with Christ through sin? Sin is a declaration of the person to God and to his fellow men— he is saying not merely that he hates God but that he is indifferent to him and toward anything he commands.
I cannot say I have heard much rhetoric of an alternative deity as I have from the camp of radical feminists. This group hates men and raises abortion to the level of an infernal sacrament. It is for this reason that many Christians view abortion as the return to the practice of human sacrifice. The innocents are being devoured by demons (masquerading as deities).
When we see rallies for militant homosexuals, they are also often associated with the new atheism and its tendency toward sacrilege and the vulgar or profane. Homosexuals have a widespread tendency toward promiscuity and multiple partners. The Christians among them seem to yearn for a particular friendship. Many have noted that while of the same gender, men and women alike in these same-sex bonds seem to mimic heterosexual polarities: one is more manly or dominant and the other is more feminine or passive. Most Christians who struggle with homosexuality tend to stay clear of much of the more blatant and overt shenanigans. They are not cross dressers and the notion of spitting the sacred host into the face of priests (as was done to the late John Cardinal O’Connor is repugnant to them). They tend to steer away from public expressions of intimacy. They deplore violence and emotionally are easily hurt. They love the Church but often feel that the Church does not want them. They struggle with the judgment that they are welcome but only as long as they remain chaste and celibate. While it might sound like a stereotype, they are attracted to ritual and sacred music. They delight in liturgies that are aesthetically beautiful and which raise hearts to heaven. As a group they are attracted to churches with set ceremonials and find comfort in familiarity.
Catholicism cannot affirm disordered homosexual acts as akin to the marital act between a man and woman. The Church does not have the authority to ratify as good or neutral what is deemed by both divine positive law and natural law as wrong and sinful. As with our COURAGE program, we can assist them to live out a chaste celibate love. We can partner with them in prayer and service. They should not define themselves principally by the same-sex attraction with which they struggle. They may not be called to marriage but they are called to holiness. They should not engage in homosexual acts but they are called to love and to have friendships. There is a place for them in the Church. It is best that homosexuals not enter the priesthood; however, priests can rightly model for them lives of celibate service. God will give his children the gifts and the strength they need to be good and holy.
What can we affirm? First, we should accept as genuine the religious sense that they have. They should seek to remain in a state of grace so as to make the most of faith study, prayer and the sacraments. Second, love needs to be expressed and our parishes have many initiatives where they can participate. They have generous and selfless hearts. Third, the church would be the first to promote friendship or brotherhood or sisterhood. Love does not have to be sexual. The sacrifice of Jesus shows us the true depths of a love and passion that eclipses all other loves, including the passionate intimacy of spouses. The covenant of lovers points toward that greater covenant that is merited by the blood of the Cross.
There is something of a mystery when we speak of the God who has revealed himself and the God we know. The saving acts of God take place in history but the presence of God is not locked in the past. As Catholics, we would make a case for the Christian deity or the Trinity. We would insist that God is real and one; that he is the author of all things; that he cares about us; that he has inserted himself into human history; that he has shown his face to us; that he has redeemed us from the folly of sin and death; and that he has established a community of faith to proclaim the truth and to perpetuate his saving work in Christ. We argue from faith, philosophy and even science that God objectively exists apart from whatever many might subjectively believe or not believe. While Christians would seek to live in peace with others, we would not personally tolerate or regard as also real the various opposing notions of deities or the negation of atheism. Tension often arises because belief is not easily captured between church walls but tends to saturate the society in which one lives, influencing human values and how people would express them.
Many early Christians became martyrs in the pagan Roman Empire because they refused to worship mythical deities or the emperors. These deities were interpreted by the ancient Church fathers as false gods or worse as demons in disguise. When we read the later pagan authors, they blamed the fall of the empire upon the rise of Christianity and how it had reinvented or replaced the deities they previously followed. Their arguments were somewhat pragmatic because even during its heyday, many Romans went through the prescribed motions but really placed no faith in the false deities and their “soap opera” lives. But the acceptance of Christianity had a profound impact upon the values of Rome. There was a definite moral shift. Today, many are again recreating our understanding of a deity while growing numbers are complaining that the whole notion of a God has served its purpose and should now be discarded. As before, many say they believe but in truth there is nothing about their behavior that would convict them as Christ’s disciples.
Within the context of Christianity, many would say that revisionists have no right to reinvent God and to modify or to reverse his moral teachings. Leaning toward the subjective, they would counter the argument by a preponderance of questions.
The RCIA team and this Muslim family in Bethesda has done that which would earn them rebuke and imprisonment in many non-Christian countries: making possible their conversion to Catholicism this Easter. Given religious intolerance elsewhere, even the Pope told the Christians of Morocco that their mission was NOT to make converts. Speaking for myself… God bless this family for having the courage to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in coming to the true faith! And God bless those Catholics who have walked with them on this journey of faith!
The family above also comes from a non-Christian nation. What will happen to them should they return?
All the first believers were Jews. If they had not converted their own then there would be no Church. The early Christians were persecuted by a pagan Rome that worshipped multiple deities and the emperor. We do not stand outside the doors of Hindu or Buddhist temples, Islamic mosques or Jewish synagogues tearing down the faith of others through proselytization. But much of the non-Christian world has criminalized any evangelization and/or conversion. The mission of proclaiming the Good News is a systemic element of Catholic faith.
We may remember that the whole fight with the Obama administration was on this topic of religious liberty… that the Church has a mission beyond the walls and doors of her places of worship. Given the oppressive yoke of either Communism or Islam, many of the Orthodox churches of the East (unlike Western Catholicism) opted to emphasize ritual and liturgy over any missionary outreach or social gospel. How can the Church be a genuine “yeast” in any society where we are hesitant to share the full message and person of Jesus with others… the one and only Savior and Lord? Is the preservation of harmony in society worth the price of people’s immortal souls? The truth must be proclaimed… to our own and the fallen away, to non-believers and to those who belong to religions where truth and error are mixed.
Part of the problem we face as Americans is that we are too insular, interested in Hollywood or feminism or gay marriage or other local concerns while ignorant to the crises faced by believers throughout the larger world.
Given personal integrity, each of us is called to pursue the truth as he or she sees it. Silence does not always promote truth or equate immediately to faithfulness. The witness of Christ is not a passive or disinterested docility but an aggressive and countercultural pursuit for the truth and for justice. Catholicism is a global faith and we need to open our eyes to the plight of believers everywhere.
Granted his singular position, the Pope speaks not for himself but for Christ and the world-church. This makes anything he says important for reflection and guidance. We show respect to him personally and render religious assent to what he teaches all the while knowing that the charism of infallibility does not apply to every practical decision or policy. Cardinals Burke, Mueller, Sarah and Zen and others have rightfully offered their concerns about this papacy, all the while doing so in fidelity to Petrine authority and Church teaching. While we are not part of the Magisterium, I would suggest this is a pattern for “thinking” and “caring” believers.
Matthew 28:18-20 – “Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.'”
The Holy Father praised the moderate Islam that is being fostered in Morocco? And yet, converts to Christianity are not recognized and they must often worship in secret. Conversion from Islam to Christianity is illegal. Missionary outreach or evangelism is punishable with three years in prison. Jesus commanded us to be fishers of men… so how can the Pope say that making converts is not our mission? Catholics and other Christians are suffering for the faith… is it all for nothing?
I hear the story is getting a lot of press worldwide, not just among Muslims but among Buddhists and Hindus. The link here is to a Jerusalem newspaper. It has also made big headlines in the Hindu newspapers of India. Evidently this is being thrown into the faces of Christians who have sought to make converts there. There will be a lot of ripples from this.
It may be that I am too thick to understand the Holy Father. Certainly we should strive to live in peace with others. My posture will always be one of respect and obedience… even if I am somewhat befuddled. I may also be somewhat over-sensitive… particularly when it comes to the situation of Christians persecuted for their faith. The first glimmerings of my call to priesthood came with an admiration of those Catholics and clergy who suffered for their faith… oppressed by non-Christian religions and/or by Communism. My thoughts also turn to China where many worry about the underground church and pray that we have not betrayed them.
His Enemy Came and Sowed Weeds All through the Wheat
These are dark days for the Church. One of my friends even said, “These scandals make me feel ashamed to work for the Church.” I well understood. At every Mass a priest mentions and prays for his bishop by name. What if a bishop should disappoint you or you discover that one was likely a reprobate? I suspect a number of priests have paused or recently winced during the saying of the Eucharistic prayer. In any case, we are called to pray for the good and the bad, always remembering as priests that we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.
Jesus’ apostles often disappointed him— one even betrayed and despaired, taking his own life. I suppose the best of priests are wounded healers. Nevertheless, there are certain sins that cry out to heaven. I am reminded of one of the parables:
“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matthew 13:24-30)
Is it time for the harvest? It is so very hard to separate the weeds from the wheat. Indeed, the weeds threaten to strangle the wheat. We desperately want to see the weeds bundled and burned.
The Devil Made Me Do It
Alarmists about Vatican II regularly cite a quotation attributed to Pope Paul VI that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” While I neither have a naïve celebratory nor a pejorative view of the Council, I do feel that a diabolical attack upon the Church extending back to the very beginning of the incarnation is reaching a fever pitch in these latter days. The assault targets both clergy and lay. The complicit backdrop is a culture where sexual perversion is increasingly regarded as normative, where immigrant families are derided as criminals and subhumans and where mothers argue for the choice or right to murder their children.
Just as Christ is the fulfillment of the ancient promise for redemption given our first parents; the devil is all about broken promises. He corrupted Adam but failed when it came to Jesus and that failure fills him with an eternal spite. He numbs consciences to the truth about the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons. He hardens hearts, not merely against charity but even about what should be obvious in regards to compassion, mercy and decency. Truth is an immediate casualty but so is the love that beckons to us from the Cross. We become comfortable with our sins and selfishness. Divine commands become weak suggestions.
Christ was tempted but could not fall; however, we still struggle with the brokenness of the first Adam. Apart from Christ we are destined to fail. The world pampers our pride. The flesh entices our senses. The devil seeks to oppress and even to possess us. Satan has a burning hatred for us and the Church. He lost the war against Christ but continues to corrupt and steal in skirmishes for individual souls. We should not pretend that the devil is a fool. He knows that the best way to hurt the Church is to undermine her ministers— as goes the priesthood, so goes the Church. It was only a matter of time that this crisis would turn to the bishops given that they possess the fullness of priesthood.
Jesus redeemed us and yet some would return to their bondage of suffering, sin and death. We hear the devil speaking through the mouths of his slaves all the time: “I am not a saint so why try? May we always be going to hell but never get there. You can’t tell me what to do. If it feels good then do it. It is my body. Everyone is doing it! Those foreigners are all drug dealers and rapists! I’ll run over anyone who gets in my way! Going to church is a waste of my time. To hell with her brains, I want her for her body. We don’t want his kind around here. It only becomes a baby if you want it.” Yes, I am convinced that the devil has a hand in this abuse scandal; but, of course, none of the guilty can escape personal culpability.
Man Has Made Himself the Measure of All Things
Everything is salted with sensuality and eroticism: television, movies, music, books, art, the internet, etc. Fifty Shades of Grey becomes a bestselling book and it leads to sequels and films, affirming that pornography has truly gone mainstream. We feed our children to demons, not only with abortion but by eroticizing adolescents— dressing them as provocative adults, putting makeup on babies, romanticizing their juvenile relationships and allowing them to set the rules in our homes (giving them everything they want). We fill their heads with profane music and delight in their dancing, much as did lecherous Herod over Salome. Nevertheless, denying our own cooperation in sin, we point the finger at others when lines are crossed. Man imposes his strictures of fad as dictates over natural law, the height of lunacy. Few are willing to admit that gender confusion and same-sex unions have fashioned a twisted parody of marriage. A political correctness mislabels the clergy scandal so that it cannot be adequately addressed. We clamor about a few pedophiles when the problem remains a cabal of unsated homosexual pederasts.
Forbidden are a host of words and concepts like purity, chastity, virginity, temperance, obedience, duty, sacrifice, etc. Truth is no longer “what is” but simply “what we want it to be.” A Christian society has largely vanished. Many elements of the Church have given up the fight and have been seduced. Custody of the eyes is virtually impossible. If there remains any element of shame from damaged consciences and complicity in scandal then it is brushed aside by critics upon others. We find much of this transference in how the Church is faulted, especially her clergy. A problematical infestation of active homosexuals is ignored or tolerated because the culture wants to affirm and normalize homosexuality. Thus, the errant priests who largely target males are labeled as “pedophiles” when in actuality they are essentially repressed homosexuals acting out with other men or committing pederasty with older minors. (I must quickly add that this judgment should not diminish a respect for persons or insinuate that all homosexuals are a danger to minors. We need to be sympathetic to those who seek to be chaste and celibate, even if they should not be welcomed into holy orders.)
Where do we go from here? Silence is not the answer; indeed, it becomes part of the problem. Moving the men around is not the answer; like shipping the trash out to sea it only makes a problem for others somewhere else. Much of the damage evades healing, at least in this world. What is done cannot be undone. (Many of us hoped and prayed that this problem was largely behind us.) Now we know that most of us will be long in the grave before these troubled seas are calm again.
The late cardinal-priest Avery Dulles was a prophet about this problem, urging adequate protections for innocent priests but also alerting the bishops that they should not exclude themselves from inspection, reprimand and public penance. When these issues first began to make headlines the USCCB recommended a day of penance for the laity to pray upon this issue— but the criticism was rightfully made that the laity would prefer to see the bishops and priests on their knees. The situation with the disoriented and misbehaving clergy might have been a symptom of a sick society and a repressive Church but still people were right to argue about the blinders that some of the shepherds were wearing. I suppose the issue of fault is often connected to liability and lawyers. It should be about contrition, amendment of life and penance.
The revelations during the last few weeks have caused many of us who love the Church, clergy and laity alike, to weep as we have prayed. How can we win back the confidence of God’s people as credible witnesses to the Gospel? The flock has every right to be upset at the many allegations of misconduct and the passivity from bishops in protecting our children. Where was accountability in all this? How could anyone move up the ranks of the hierarchy when there were sordid rumors and even past settlements for sexual misbehavior? Many of us are shaking our heads; it is so unbelievable. And yet, like throwing gasoline into an open fire, there are many in authority claiming “I did not know” or “We thought we could morally reform the man” or “A few of the details need correction or clarification.” No one should be falsely charged, either in the commission of heinous acts or as concealing that which cries out to be known; however, missteps were made and we will never move forward while there is a refusal to accept responsibility for how matters were handled.
I’m Mad as Hell and I am Not Going to Take This Anymore!
Most bishops do not regularly live and work in parishes. They may not be fully aware of how angry people are. I am reminded of the 1976 movie Network where the television newscaster shouts, “You’ve got to say: I’m a human being, g-dammit! My life has value! So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”
As I said, the faithful have every right to be upset. They deserve good and holy priests. They should expect that their bishops and priests would love and protect them, especially the children. Will we see more empty pews? Will needed funds dry up? I cannot yet say, although I have heard more than one person say that he or she will be cutting back. As with the lawsuits and large monetary awards to victims and their lawyers— we could also end up victimizing the faithful in the pews and the needy in our communities. While the Church’s moral authority is compromised, we are still a voice and helping hand for the oppressed and the poor. What will happen to them if our resources are stripped away from the Church?
A Proposal for the Future
I have a hard time believing some of the things I am hearing. I do not want to believe it all. The deteriorating situation signifies bad news in terms of our credibility in proclaiming the Good News. Again, what must we do? Msgr. Charles Pope writes:
“As a lower-ranking priest I cannot issue demands or send binding norms to those in wider and upper ranks of the hierarchy, but I do want to say to God’s faithful how powerfully aware I am of their justified anger and agree with their insistence that something more than symbolic action or promises of future reform is necessary.”
At the end of his article at the National Catholic Register, he states:
“Remember, too, not every bishop or priest is equally to blame. Some are suffering as much as you are. However, no one, clergy or lay, should exempt himself from the task of summoning the Church to reform and greater holiness.”
That is exactly the case and I would like to applaud his courage and forthrightness in saying so.
It is my view that only something drastic will make any difference in the current climate of anger and distrust. I am only a priest and maybe a poor one, but here are my suggestions:
There should be a new review board given over entirely to the laity (men and women) where bishops could participate as observers and advisors (on ecclesial protocols as well as canonical and theological questions.)
While certain facets of professional secrecy and the seal of confession would have to be respected, there should be no secret agreements and a general transparency in the process.
There would need to be collaboration with the Holy See, not only to modify certain canons of the Church (returning to the explicit language of the 1917 code), but to create an independent canonical board and to facilitate canonical trials.
This review board should also become a clearing house for charges against clergy, especially bishops; priests would be able to share what they know without fear of reprisal in their dioceses.
There should be a general purge of those in the upper hierarchy who have tolerated active homosexuality or who have failed in their duty to protect vulnerable persons and the young from predator priests (through either silence or shuffling clergy elsewhere).
There should be a bill of rights for priests to insure justice and due process in determining innocence or guilt along with a provision for legal representation (an innocent priest should not be reduced to bankruptcy in trying to defend his good name while Church lawyers defend bishops).
Continue to insure that those who have abused or harmed minors would be permanently removed from Church ministries.
Insure that all programs of priestly formation also include regular psychological evaluation from a therapist who assents to Church teaching on human sexuality, not minimizing issues like consensual heterosexual relations (fornication), homosexual acts, masturbation, pornography and/or a general discomfort around women.
Forbid seminary formation to anyone who has committed homosexual acts and permanently remove any priests from ministry who violate their celibacy in committing them.
Suspend a priest from active ministry who has violated his celibacy with heterosexual acts, requiring either his laicization or that he spend five years doing penance in a monastic environment along with appropriate counseling prior to returning to ministry in another (arch)diocese.
Reparation for victims that brings some degree of healing and help to those harmed while not destroying the resources that rightly belong to those in the pews and to those assisted by our charity and justice initiatives. (Do we have to review the “corporate sole” model?)
Promote policies that both protect vulnerable persons and yet insure fair and just treatment for those accused.
As witnessed by Pope Francis, bishops should be required in all cases to live a very modest lifestyle with no more perks than those given to the poorest priest.
A penitential reform within the Church that would fully restore the Friday fasting and abstinence practices of the past for everyone and add particular acts of penance (over and above this) for all bishops and priests.
A daily campaign of praying the Rosary and/or the Liturgy of the Hours for the sanctification of priests, the fidelity of the Church and the conversion of sinners.
Restore the Prayer of St. Michael the Archangel to the liturgy, either at the end of the bidding prayers or at the conclusion of the Mass (Satan needs to be uprooted).
Reverse the Pyramid: Faithful Laity Can Save the Church
This is one of those situations where the good suffer along with the bad. The true “sensus fidelium” is not with dissenters, but with the faithful laity and they are the ones through their prayers and intervention who will now make a difference. Everyone should pray for the Church. Dialogue with the bishops and priests must be fair and open. This is not a situation the bishops can fix. As one person said to me, “Their credibility is shot!”
I noticed online that a few of the Hollywood celebrities have added their two cents (mostly negative) to this crisis in the Church. It would seem to me that when it comes to scandal they should be the last ones to talk, but I suppose it makes good fodder for deflection. Pointing to the sins of others takes the attention off one’s own. Years ago when these scandals first broke, I asked an elderly priest (who has since gone to God) about such matters. He explained that he was surprised about the child abuse but that the problem of errant priests was not new. However, he explained, the Church treated transgressions (as when a priest fell with a woman) entirely as moral ones, not focusing on psychological issues or any kind of pathology beyond the man’s control. It was presumed that after a reprimand, going to confession, a retreat and a verbal assurance of repentance— that a priest might be returned to ministry. Evidently, when it came to some of them, and particularly regarding disordered urges and an attraction to youth, no such assurances could be trusted.
There has been a great deal in the news about allegations of misconduct by Cardinal McCarrick. He has resigned from the College of Cardinals and Pope Francis has ordered him to pursue a “life of prayer and penance.” There is not much more that I can say about what has come out about Cardinal McCarrick. He was a great communicator and extremely charismatic. We clashed years ago when I openly opposed the practice of giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians. I am still deeply troubled about such policies, although the scope seems to be expanding to include invitations for those in adulterous unions to take the sacrament and even to receive absolution. How can the mortal sins of enabling murder or committing marital infidelity properly dispose one for the divine mysteries? I shake my head. Maybe I am too stupid to understand? I promised him years ago that I would pray for him daily. Now, more than before, I am dedicated to keeping that promise.
The Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report on sex abuse in the Catholic Church was hard to read. I became overwhelmed by grief and wept. How could this happen? Priests are called “Father” and fathers are supposed to protect, nurture and heal their children. My next emotion was anger. Men broke their promises and they lied about it. Others were so afraid of scandal and litigation that they apparently kept silent. Was this the Church for which I sought to be a priest by entering the seminary 40 years ago? Our faith is ultimately not in weak men but in Jesus who is God come down from heaven to save us. Given all the negativity and the painful stories, how is it affecting the people in the pews? (I am planning a monthly parish program on the saints. That is where we find the real legacy of the Church. We will focus on those who faithfully ran the race and won their crowns.)
Years ago when I heard that Cardinal Wuerl was coming to Washington I was delighted as I had been a fan of his catechism, The Teaching of Christ, going back to my college seminary days. His little book, The Mass: The Glory, the Mystery, the Tradition, co-authored with Mike Aquilina, is a real gem and a useful tool in teaching about the Eucharistic liturgy. As one of his priests, it is hard to hear all the criticism from his time in Pittsburgh. It seems to me that he did so very much to make a positive difference in protecting children. Did he stumble at some point? I am certain that there are many families and victims appreciative for what he tried to do for them. There has been some talk that the Grand Jury Report got a number of particulars wrong. I am not in possession of all the facts and so I will leave it up to others to figure out. I will keep him in my prayers, especially in the Mass, and urge our good people in the pews not to despair.
I am reminded of John Cardinal Newman’s work on the Arian crisis and St. Athanasius when so many of the bishops had fallen into heresy. He concluded that in the fourth century the laity were the heroes who had saved the day for the true faith. While the Lord will be the one to ultimately separate the weeds from the wheat or the goats from the lambs, we need to trust our good lay men and women today. I am not talking about dissenters but the homeschooling family, the teacher in the parish school, the volunteers running the bible study, the Blue Army lady always rattling off her beads in the lonely church, the teenager eager to serve Mass, the Knights of Columbus men who actively live out charity in communities, the virtuous souls who march for life and stand outside abortion clinics praying for the unborn and their parents, the reader faithful to his service, the altar guild ladies who help set up for the liturgy, etc. Allowing the laity to take the lead may be hard for bishops as it seems to be a surrender of their authority; however, in truth this is precisely the kind of humiliation that may restore their moral jurisdiction as servants of the Most High God.
Statement from the Archdiocese of Washington to Pastors
Many of you have addressed the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report, as well as the Archbishop McCarrick matter in homilies or comments to your parishioners. Cardinal Wuerl requests that you not shy away from addressing these matters again in a spirit and manner that you feel appropriate. He also requests that you include in your Prayers of the Faithful the following intercession:
“For young people and our most vulnerable that they remain safe and protected, and for those survivors of abuse whether by power or violence, especially by the clergy who have not lived up to their call to holiness. Let us pray to the Lord.”
Finally, as a concluding prayer after the Prayers of the Faithful, he requests the following Prayer for Healing Victims of Abuse from the USCCB:
God of endless love, ever caring, ever strong, always present, always just: You gave your only Son
to save us by the blood of his cross.
Gentle Jesus, shepherd of peace, join to your own suffering the pain of all who have been hurt in body, mind, and spirit by those who betrayed the trust placed in them.
Hear our cries as we agonize over the harm done to our brothers and sisters. Breathe wisdom into our prayers, soothe restless hearts with hope, steady shaken spirits with faith. Show us the way to justice and wholeness, enlightened by truth and enfolded in your mercy.
Holy Spirit, comforter of hearts, heal your people’s wounds and transform our brokenness. Grant us courage and wisdom, humility and grace, so that we may act with justice and find peace in you.
Last year the Buenos Aires bishops interpreted the pope’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia so as to permit those sexually active in invalid unions to receive Holy Communion (in certain cases). The Holy Father praised their interpretation in a private letter (September 5, 2016) to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy, the Delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region of the Bishops’ Conference of Argentina. He wrote, “El escrito es muy bueno y explicita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo VIII de Amoris laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones.” (Translation:The document is very good and clearly explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations). On June 5, 2017 by order of a papal rescript, both the Criteria or Interpretation of the Buenos Aires bishops and the papal letter were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, purportedly making this the position of the Church’s “authentic Magisterium.” This seems to conflict with the teaching of Pope John Paul II and with the current Code of Canon Law (canon 752). It would affect our discipline about Holy Communion and even Confessional Absolution. Cardinal Wuerl insists that the doctrine has not changed, just the pastoral discipline. I think I will go back to praying on my knees for awhile on this one.
Who are we going to punish? I worry about this as a priest in reference to the distribution of Holy Communion, absolution in the sacrament of Penance and in terms of preaching a faith message from the Scriptures that might immediately be interpreted as “hate speech.” Passivity and toleration is not enough to appease certain people… it is being demanded that conventional Christians become advocates for sinful behavior. If a priest gives the sacraments to anyone, no matter what their views and lifestyle, then does he not become an accomplice in their sin? Would he forfeit his own immortal soul for causing scandal and violating conscience, the commandments and his sacred duty? For the sake of accompaniment, can a bishop or even pope force a priest to say or do something that he views as sinful and wrong?
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 