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.
God forbid that young people at school events should get a taste of traditional American liberties, like freedom of religion and freedom of speech… NOT! Schools can teach science and the faith of atheism but are to make no mention a Creator. Schools can teach safe “promiscuous” sex and give away condoms, but not a penny is available for abstinence education. Schools are forbidden to teach the 10 Commandments and then wonder why youth misbehave and get in trouble with the law. All manner of vulgarity is tolerated but not a bible verse on a sheet… yep, these girls are real trouble-makers, but the right kind. When Islamic religious fanatics burn the flag, destroy property and commit murder… we target our sights upon peaceful Christian cheerleaders at a school football game. Ah, the world is insane!
How many Catholic chapels are there in Islamic schools? Where does courtesy end and religious indifferentism begin? How does one reconcile this with the insistence that “Catholic identity” is not at risk in our parochial schools? Do the Jewish children get their private prayer space as well? What about the Wiccans and Satanists? Do they get chapels to honor the goddess and/or the horned beast? Certainly, we would not want to discriminate or be judgmental… would we? Ah, the plight of radical tolerance!
If trash television were not trasmitted at all then such accidents would not happen. The truth is that our children are exposed to unhealthy and vulgar images all the time. We cannot trust television to babysit our children. It is a compromised media. The providers are more interested in making money, even with virtual prostitution, then in helping parents to raise kids of good moral character and virtue. In any case, if adults are themselves corrupted by this media, then how can they pass on anything of value without the poison of hypocrisy?
With a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:
Let us Pray.
Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation. Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States. Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.
We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.
We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty. May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms. Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love. Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.
We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness. Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community. May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.
We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people. O God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office. Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country. Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.
And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice. We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.
And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.
For we are indeed “one nation under God,” and “in God we trust.”
So dear God, bless America. You who live and reign forever and ever.
Amen!
Note: The major networks purportedly cut away from the convention and did not show the prayer.
Father Joe, what is your take on Father Bob Pierson?
FATHER JOE:
I had heard of him but had not followed the recent business about his ten minute statement that went viral attacking the initiative supported by the U.S. bishops in opposition to so-called same-sex marriages.
What the priest fails to appreciate is that conscience must be properly informed. Freedom of conscience is not relative moral license. Otherwise, the cause of conscience could be rallied not only for homosexuality but also for other evils like polygamy, bestiality and pederasty. Rather, true liberty comes with an orientation to that which is true and good. Obedience to divine positive law (as revealed in the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and natural law (as ascertained through the right use of reason to the objective order) makes us truly free. The commission of sin and immoral acts brings not freedom but spiritual bondage.
The priest in the video takes statements from the Church and churchmen out of context, much as a fundamentalist minister might from the Bible to support his claims. Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope, has certainly always taught about the obligation in following conscience; however, he has likewise insisted that homosexuality is a serious sexual disorientation and that the commission of genital acts associated with it are intrinsically immoral.
Notice that he quotes Cardinal Hume who wrote, “Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.” His quote came in the context of a larger statement in the UK on the homosexual question. While it is certainly permissible to exhibit fraternal and platonic love, as in most friendships, it would be wrong to equate these words with sexual activity and or anal or oral sex. This is another instance where the priest’s remarks are deliberately deceptive. He is well educated and knows what he is doing. This makes him all the more culpable.
Father Pierson is selective in his quotes from the universal catechism. Note that he does not read from CCC #1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”
Although he attempts to bracket off sacramental marriage in the Church from civilly recognized marriages, such is only a shallow ploy to avoid personal censure and to elicit support from normally orthodox Catholics. The way that society views marriage informs and spills over into how the faithful understand the sacrament of marriage. Indeed, he, himself, is a staff member in an organization where a Protestant minister and an ex-Catholic bless same-sex unions. Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.
The speaker acknowledges that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that homosexuals should not be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. Father Pierson has “come out” that he is a homosexual who opposes Church teaching. We can only hope that he has kept his promise of celibacy. Regardless, he now ridicules the Holy Father and takes a scandalous position against the U.S. bishops and the Marriage Matters campaign. I should add, however, that marriage was threatened long before this issue of so-called same-sex marriage. Marriage was imperiled by growing rates of promiscuity, cohabitation, contraception, adultery, divorce (especially the no-fault variety), and remarriage outside the Church.
Father Pierson had resigned from his post as director of campus ministry after the Vatican officially barred men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from ordination, and because of associated issues in the Church’s faith and moral teaching. “Because I can no longer honestly represent, explain and defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I feel I must resign,” he said. It was also rumored that he was forced out, as he should have been, to avoid further intervention from higher-ups.
His local bishop, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis has strenuously promoted the amendment in opposition to so-called same-sex marriage. He required parishioners in the archdiocese to recite A Prayer for Marriage as part of the General Intercessions at Masses. The U.S. bishops have been very clear in their opposition. Marriage is only genuine if it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
Back in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Vatican, made a statement for correction and support of a letter promulgated by the American bishops. Father Pierson selectively quoted him, but strangely and dishonestly, not this statement which speaks to the question at hand.
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”
“To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent….”
“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”
“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”
Father Bob Pierson, O.S.B. should be disciplined by his Benedictine order. He has caused scandal and given rise to public dissent from the Church. His faculties to function as a priest should be revoked or curtailed. As a man under ecclesial obedience, he should either publicly recant his dissent or face immediate dismissal. A priest who recommends mortal sin is no longer aligned with Christ. Even if he should be demented or ignorant, he is now on the side of the evil one.
STEPHEN:
Father Joe, I agree with everything you said, albeit except for maybe one small clarification. You write, “Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.” Father Bob would disagree as he was careful to differentiate between civil marriages, which are all “outside the Church” and the Church does not recognize anyway and “sacramental” marriages within the Church. Thus, Father Bob would argue that his voting NO on banning same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with Church teaching on sacramental marriage.
I completely agree this priest should be disciplined severely. But will he be? Almost certainly not, and this is the primary reason for our current crisis. Dietrich Von Hildebrand called it the “Lethargy of the Guardians” as far back as the 70’s. We have suffered under the complete unwillingness of ecclesiastical authority since Vatican II to discipline clerics and bishops for egregious sins against doctrine and the faith. What makes it worse is that the same ecclesiastical authority DOES discipline and bring the hammer down for breaking procedural rules/canon laws that have nothing to do with heresy or doctrine. This sets up a practice which lessens the credibility of the bishops who selectively punish lesser offenses while allowing the most egregious publicly scandalous statements from dissenting priests to go unpunished.
I would dare say it is a sin for this man’s bishop or superior not to discipline him in some way, including at minimum, silencing him on this issue to at least minimize further scandal. Will it happen? I’m willing to bet you a shiny nickel it will not. And it is a slap in the face to you and other good priests who would be punished in a second if you did something like deny Holy Communion to a practicing Lesbian Buddhist who introduced you to her “lover” in the sacristy before Mass.
FATHER JOE:
The priest has a track record beyond the video. (I have not directly linked the video, only a strong critique. Those who want to see it can Google the liberal propaganda.)
He recognizes same-sex marriages as valid, both civilly and in the eyes of God. What confuses the issue is that he denies that there has to be concurrence or approbation from the “institutional” Church. I do not have proof, but like some of his Episcopalian liberals, he would love to bless (and maybe has) these unions. He is a regular speaker at gay-lesbian conventions. Remember, too, that priests are only allowed to witness marriages in the U.S. that are also civilly recognized. We function as both civil magistrates and as ministers of the Church. This is not the case in many countries where Catholic couples are required to endure two ceremonies. Such only happens in the U.S. when there is a convalidation.
I should add, that the Church generally recognizes civil marriages between spouses who are not Catholic. If they are legitimately baptized, then there may be a sacramental character as well. Indeed, if there is a divorce and a desire to marry a Catholic, they would have to pursue a formal case annulment with no guarantees of success. Now we will further have to clarify that we do not recognize adulterous marriages or feigned same-sex marriages. I suspect, given the pressure from the Obama administration, that clergy will eventually have to forfeit their civil authority over marriages in order to distinguish the sacramental covenant from the civil legal contract. Once the definition of marriage diverges, we cannot be party to something in which we do not believe. This may already be happening in light of no fault divorce. I would also not be surprised if the government should seek to compel clergy to witness same-sex marriages. The rights of the Church are very much threatened. I pray that our bishops and priests will have the courage to face fines and imprisonment. The latter is quite possible, if the Church’s stand against homosexuality should be judged as a violation of civil rights laws and as hate-speech.
Further, the priest has been involved in the Catholic gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual community. He knows full well the canonical restraints upon Catholics and does not care. All this is to say that the video is deceptive propaganda. He is a liar. Even when he throws out crumbs of feigned respect to Church discipline, they are lies. If you are familiar with his work in Collegeville, then you would know that he also rejects the “proles” (open to human generation) element that is essential to the covenant of marriage. He literally believes that anal intercourse consummates the bond. It is in light of all this that I said that he is a heretic regarding the sacrament of marriage.
In regards to disciplinary measures, they may actually be in the works. Had he been a secular or diocesan priest matters might have been easier. The Benedictines tend to protect their own and have a rather progressive track record in his particular community. One of them (Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB) recently attacked the corrected translation of the Mass at the national Call to Action convention. They also honored the Lesbian Buddhist-Catholic you mentioned and the pro-abortion Catholic Maryland governor was also in attendance. There are a lot of trouble-makers to go around these days.
Orthodox and traditional churchmen have a higher capacity for suffering in that they love the Church and seek to be obedient while the other side really does not care; liberal breakaway groups, as with Archbishop Milingo and Washington’s own Father George Stallings, were also censured and even faced excommunication. In this sense, there is some parallel. I suspect that many in the Church find the contemporary situation almost overwhelming given the pervasive dissent. During this silent and not so silent schism, there is also the worry that the wrong action might lead the ignorant or weak of faith out of the Church. You are right, not all shepherds are to be trusted. But we must also be careful NOT to spread calumny and to hurt good men who are doing their best.
Pope Benedict XVI seems to be hoping that attrition and orthodox replacements among the clergy might hold the answer. My worry is that he, himself, is not a young man. I have found an almost uncharitable delight in how Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the new Ordinary for San Francisco is making the gay establishment squirm and fret. They were pouting the other day because he outlawed drag queens at fundraisers! Really?
Again, do not be fooled. He might say that “…for committed, same-sex couples is not the Sacrament of Matrimony,” but he really does see it as analogous. Remember, sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin. There is nothing equivalent to it. As a priest he knows this. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Bishops are right on this one. So-called same-sex marriages are indeed a threat to the genuine covenant of marriage, natural or sacramental. There is no loop-hole or escape clause that would allow Catholics to support institutional sodomy.
STEPHEN:
Thanks for the background. In this video he seems to take the stance of…”who cares what the state of MN deems as ‘marriage’ since the Church only recognizes sacramental marriages anyway?” He argues the flip side of religious freedom by stating that the Church should not dictate to the state how it defines “marriage” as civil and Church marriages are separate entities and (in his mind) serve different purposes.
FATHER JOE:
The secular sphere in the public forum would not appreciate marriage as a sacrament. Rather, the point of intersection between the Church and state is the traditional view of marriage as a “natural bond.” The growing division between the Church’s view of marriage, as well as that of natural law, is the reason why someone like Bai Macfarlane has campaigned heavily for traditional marriage and against no fault divorce. Some of her supporters would claim that the conflict or opposition between the civil and ecclesial view of marriage has reached a breaking point, in both the heterosexual orientation and its permanence. They argue that clergy should opt out entirely from working within the system. They suggest that the priest who witnesses any marriage for the state has corrupted (by association) the Catholic understanding. This argument becomes even more defensible if society should formally equate same-sex unions with heterosexual marriages. While priests will not officiate at the feigned marriages of homosexuals and lesbians; will the truth be compromised by our continuing partnership with government in witnessing marriages and signing civil licenses? But what is the alternative? Priests in Europe and Asia often find that in the dual ceremony-system, couples tend to cohabitate if there is any extended duration between the vows before a judge and those before a priest.
The priest errs seriously, by his own admission, for failing to fault the homosexual lifestyle as sinful. Indeed, he seems to praise and to encourage the commission of evil. People of the same gender can be friends but they cannot be spouses. A legal fiction will not make it so.
I would like to know if a person married in civil rites to a non-Catholic 40 years ago, then separated after five years of marriage and with 3 children needs an absolution from the Pope even if the person after separating confessed her sin and received absolution from a priest?
FATHER JOE:
It may be that you are confusing “absolution” with “annulment” but in either instance the Pope would not normally enter the picture. Given that the person who married a non-Catholic is a Catholic, the civil marriage ceremony would have no standing in the Church. A simple declaration of nullity would be all that is required should that person want to marry in the Church. The amount of time that has passed since the attempted marriage and separation, even the instance and number of children, would be inconsequential to the ecclesiastical grounds against it being licit. Church law requires that Catholics have their marriages witnessed by a deacon or priest unless the appropriate dispensations have been granted. The absolution of a priest after a divorce or separation is a separate matter; however, if a Catholic should cohabitate with a civil law spouse, absolution could not be given.
If the person who married a non-Catholic were also a non-Catholic at the time of the civil ceremony, then the Church would consider that marriage as lawful and binding. If there were a divorce and either party wanted to marry in the Catholic Church, a formal annulment case would have to be entered and adjudicated by a Church Tribunal to determine the true validity of the prior bond. If the first marriage is shown to be binding and genuine, no second marriage could be permitted until the death of one of the spouses.
MARIA:
Further to my question, since you said that the Catholic/non-Catholic couple who entered into marriage through civil rites and have separated, only requires nullification, who will perform this then? The Catholic woman has no intentions of getting married but is guilty of the mortal sin she committed against God so wants to have an absolution from the Pope if possible.
FATHER JOE:
A declaration of nullity comes from the Tribunal and the Bishop. The application and supporting documentation is sent to the Chancery. A copy of the civil license, divorce decree and the baptismal certificate is part of the package. There is little other documentation because a civil union of a Catholic outside the Church is NO MARRIAGE. The declaration of nullity is NOT an annulment strictly speaking. A formal case ANNULMENT regards a bond that fulfills the external norms of the law: two witnesses, before a priest and deacon, proper dispensations, and jurisdiction. If a Catholic marries in the Church then the presumption is that the marriage is genuine. A formal case requires testimony by people who saw problems early on and an essay by the petitioner.
If the person you are talking about does not intend to get married (again), she should simply see a priest and receive absolution. The Pope has nothing to do with her case. There is nothing more to be done. As for the previous marriage, if it were out of the Church, then forget about it. As far as the Church is concerned, it never happened… sacramentally, that is.
MATT:
Indeed Father Joe is correct, making a good confession and receiving absolution is all that is required. Sure, it would be great to see the Holy Father, but make that trip after you have seen your parish priest. Make it a joyous trip rather than an act of penance. See a priest, make a good confession and allow the joy and peace of Christ to return to your heart. Know too that my prayers are with you.
JULIA:
Father Joe, thanks for your insights.
I am dealing with a marriage related situation, too, but not of me.
My sister is being married at 54 for the first time. She has cohabitated with the gentleman she is marrying (whom I know) for about 15 years. They even bought a house together about 7 years ago. The man is divorced. No decree of nullity is being sought. They are being married at a facility which has set ups for both a wedding ceremony and a reception. A minister (not sure who or the denomination or if they are of a mainline denomination or one of the more flexible type) is presiding. To top it all off the whole matter is happening on Holy Saturday. They consider themselves proud to be Catholic but not in agreement with all parts of the Church’s law. For example, they are as outraged as are the majority of us re: the President’s ongoing smackdown on religious freedoms. I love my sister, but am really torn. There are so many situations here where I feel I will be witnessing to illegality if I go to the ceremony or the reception. “Keeping the peace” is not my main concern, as there are many young nieces and nephews whom I feel are subtly “taught” in this situation (that one just does what one wants). Do you have thoughts on this matter? Ugh, to put it colloquially!
FATHER JOE:
I have sometimes urged participation for family peace. But there are way too many elements that are wrong in this situation. She is not proud enough to be a Catholic given that she spurns basic Catholic values and practice. Marriages are NOT permitted on Holy Saturday. Of course, her attempted marriage will not be in the Church. Let us call the situation what it really is: after years of fornication, cohabitation and adultery, she now wants a piece of worthless paper to say they are married. Tell her you love her but let her know that you are exercising your RELIGIOUS LIBERTY in not participating in such a farce.
We are coming up on the warm months of the year and soon our people will be heading out to the beaches. It is opportune to discuss again how we dress and what we communicate by our outward appearance. As one critic rightly remarked, despite what people wear, it is good to get to know the inner person. Yes, but of course, there are many people we will never really know personally. Models in magazines and catalogues would be an example. The image may be all that we will ever encounter. Are they not saying something about their own self-respect (or lack thereof) by how they appear and how they allow themselves to be used? Strangers on a beach would be another such example. Further, visual markers have a certain staying power. We can say that dress (or undress) does not matter; but the truth is that it matters a great deal.
Girl watching on the beach is a particularly volatile issue. People get mad or roll their eyes when I offer criticism. It would be one thing if the men looked upon the women as one might a Michelangelo masterpiece, giving praise to God for the wonders of his creation and such beauty. However, men are not angels, and not infrequently, the sight of scantily clothed women is an occasion for sin— fantasies that lead to adultery in the heart, self-pollution, casual sex outside of marriage and sometimes crime. The question also arises as to what is or is not pornographic. Women would probably be better covered by ordinary underwear than by many styles of swimwear. Are men generally comfortable with showing off their wives, girlfriends and daughters in skimpy attire?
Of course, the clothing of the body is only one element to modesty. It includes dress, posture, speech, etc. Young women were once taught etiquette in such things. I can still recall a teacher talking to girls in my grammar school class about how to sit, with legs crossed. The religious sisters tell me that they were always at the girls about rolling up their skirts to their school uniforms. Even certain hair styles were regarded as somewhat provocative, although I never really understood this element. It finds some reference in Scripture and is the rationale behind the Catholic mantilla, the nun’s veil and the Islamic head covering. As I understand it, in Church circles, a woman’s hair-covering at Mass was to obscure her beauty sufficiently so that men might not be distracted from Eucharistic worship. It was also done as an ancient custom to honor God. However, I have never been one to find hair overtly sexual and as a serious threat to propriety. Maybe this is different for others?
The criticism might be offered that I have targeted the responsibility of women to be modest and have omitted men. I think there is a different psychology here. Both men and women are sexual beings, but we are not wired the same. While it is often wildly exaggerated, most men do not need much of a catalyst to think about sexual things. One girl told me that she liked to flirt but not to worry because she always stopped before she got the boys’ motors running. I quickly explained, “Sorry, but you need to know the boys’ motors are ALWAYS running!” It is no secret that pornography and the sex industry focus more heavily upon the female form than the male. In any case, presuppositions and possible stereotypes aside, men are also called to be chaste and modest. Tight fitting clothes or baggy pants that seem to be falling off are problematical. Speedo swim-shorts for men strike me also as unsightly and vulgar. Preoccupations with men’s butts can be for women a violation of the custody of the eyes. The groin-grasping dance of the late Michael Jackson would be evidence of an immodest gesture from men. Men and women must work together to preserve modesty and the many wonderful values which flow from it.
I will save the issue of how people dress when going to church for another day, after I take another blood pressure pill.
My girls and I make our own swimwear and it is very much like what the Islamic women wear. Here are some more links, Christians and others are already beginning to cater to this untapped market:
As for most Muslim swimwear, I wonder if it is easy to swim in long dresses. I have tried and get fatigued pretty quickly.
You have to fight some of the administrators at pools about modest swimwear. They argue that we wear more clothes for swimming than other females do with their day-to-day clothing! One time we had to go to court because of a rule against public dress clothes in pools. They did not believe that what we wore was for swimming. We go for the fun and exercise, not to burn ourselves or to offer cheap strip shows at the community center.
FATHER JOE:
I do not know what to say? I certainly support modest swimwear, but I thought that most would regard the styles offered as a tad much. Maybe I am wrong? Christian families are already buying into swimwear styles not dissimilar from that worn by Muslims. I did not know about this. God bless them and their efforts.
4HisCHURCH:
Modest swim wear is difficult to find (in mainstream stores). Since few, if any women have model-perfect bodies, never mind the need for dressing modestly, there are many “of a certain age” who just skip the idea of bathing suits altogether. I am glad there are some companies who manufacture “regular” swim wear with such features as shorts/skirts and tank-top like straps. I applaud any efforts in this area.
JANE:
Father, I agree with you and think the Muslim swimsuits are a little much. Like many young women I know, I managed to find a high-necked swimsuit and I wear shorts with it on the rare occasion when I visit a public pool or beach, but being covered to the wrists and ankles is, I think, over-the-top. Additionally, the baggier pants shown in one of those photos seem like they could be dangerous, hampering a swimmer’s leg movements underwater.
KNIT:
To tell you the truth, as a woman and a believer, modesty is a complex issue to me. Sometimes I find believers preach a style of clothing which, instead of being dignified (fit for the daughter of a King), is ugly. It seems to preach that there’s something inherently sinful in being woman, as if the fact that I am a woman needs to be hidden. I believe I am responsible for not creating unreasonable occasions of temptation for my brothers. But I do not believe that anything I can do can replace their own care to flee the temptations that rise from their own heart. Clothing that is well-fitting, pretty and flattering, without being indecent or too flashy to make me the center of attentions, glorifies the Lord. Every woman, of every shape, is beautiful and should dress like she believes that! I believe in looking nice, not cheap like a harlot or flashy like I am a billionaire showing off— I mean nice and beautiful. I believe that this would be approved by our Lord, who liked eating and drinking; who liked everything which was healthily fun and human. He told us to fast interiorly, not showing it. “When you fast, wash your head and perfume yourself, so that no-one knows you are fasting.” Sometimes dressing in shapeless long clothing can be a matter of pride, not of modesty.
On swimsuits, I have a personal pet-peeve with the “modesty” discussion. One-piece swimsuits only fit nicely shaped women whose upper and lower halves have similar sizes. When those halves differ by more than two sizes, the best idea, in my humble opinion, is to try to find a more or less modest bikini/tankini where each piece is sold separately. I am sorry, but that’s the only option for some women. (I am lucky that I can wear some one-piece swimsuits, but not all women can).
And what about men, do people forget that women also have lustful thoughts? Why is it OK for a man to take off his shirt when doing heavy jobs? If I have a lustful thought, it’s my responsibility. He is perfectly justified in taking off his shirt because of his job but when a woman needs to breastfeed a baby everyone is outraged?
You can swim just fine in them and they are modest, too. They are also really cute! I can also testify that they look better in real life than in the pictures. All my five daughters and myself have one. They sell out really fast so order early in the season.
FATHER JOE:
I am no expert, but I would tend to agree with you about the suits to which you link, Therese. However, while they might seem fine to us, I suspect they would never pass muster from our Muslim friends–no headgear and too much leg. I wonder what such issues say about our view of the human person and women in particular. Extremes either exploit or condemn God’s handiwork. I suppose the modest middle-ground is where struggling Christians would seek practicality while celebrating the goodness of God in his creation.
SHEREEN:
Hi, there, and the answer is, no, the straight leg pants do not hinder swimming. I wear my own “resort pants,” which are the straight leg pants (or the ‘baggier’ pants as you refer to them).
I can attest that they don’t ride up in the water, they are very thin and light (a couple of my customers have already told me it feels like they are not wearing anything), and it does not weigh down or hamper the swimmer.
However, I will mention that from a safety point of view, anything that covers the feet can be dangerous and hamper the swimmer. So, if the pant legs are too long, then in the water the pant legs will cover the feet and prevent efficient kicking. That’s why my company, “splashgear”, produces pants that fall at the ankle, but not below it.
Again, the straight leg pants do not hamper the swimmer as I and others can attest.
By the way, i was quite surprised to receive an OVERWHELMING response to the AP article. I never realized just how much non-Muslims wanted/needed full coverage swimwear. My sales and catalog requests to non-Muslims just sky-rocketed after the AP article came out, and I received so many positive and encouraging e-mails from mainstream individuals. Wow!
Thank you for your time.
Shereen Sabet – SPLASHGEAR
7445 Seastar Drive, Suite # 8, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648-2271, USA http://www.splashgearusa.com
MISS KOERNER:
Hello, I am a young woman who was searching the web for a modest bathing suit for my senior trip to Florida coming up, and stumbled on to this page. I must say that as a God-loving 18 year-old woman, I was disgusted by those suits. They are not the least bit fashionable. I believe that God has called women to be respectful of men, but he did not ask us to look like them! Personally, I am proud God made me a young woman. I don’t want to look like a man. I believe that I can dress modestly without pretending to be something I am not. A modest full-piece or full coverage tankini can be less attention-grabbing than a young woman in one of those outfits.
I think young women like me would be more receptive toward the Church’s efforts to promote modesty if we were not made to feel ashamed of the bodies God himself created.
FATHER JOE:
Finding a modest swimsuit is a real issue, but I am not a prude about such things, even if I do avoid beaches and coed pools. I am glad that you are happy to be a female and you should not be ashamed of how God has fashioned you. I have no opinion about swimsuits other than they should be in good taste, not immodest, and safe to wear. God bless!
JAK:
I’m a young teenage boy and I personally think that most secular bathing suits are immodest and not fit for wearing in public. I personally feel betrayed when my “Christian” friends wear these immoral clothes on retreats or when just hanging out when we are supposed to have and display much higher values than our non-Christian counterparts. It’s been a standing debate between my friends and me that leads to bitterness sometimes; but, I really appreciate that there are still people out there who do wear modest clothing and bathing suits.
JENNY:
Are you kidding me?
PAMELA:
Hello, you might consider my swimwear line as another alternative. I offer retro/vintage styled one-piece bathing suits that have more coverage.
Yes, some of these are rather much. I’d recommend L.L. Bean and Land’s End catalogs for more modest style swimsuits and clothing in general. They are a tad expensive, but maybe you are paying for the extra material! Just “Google” either name for their websites.
FATHER JOE:
many of the styles at Poppina Swim seem quite modest but practical.
KATRINA:
I’m sorry, but isn’t one of the main points of being modest not drawing attention to yourself? I find that these Muslim-inspired swimsuits draw a lot more attention than a modest one piece or tankini. The desire to be modest should be an act of humility, not pride.
SW:
You should all try a top free or nudist beach for a day or two and get over it. Christians use the word modesty or indecency when they really mean body shame.
FATHER JOE:
And obviously you know no shame. Christians are well aware of fallen human nature.
SW:
Clothing does not make you superior to someone who is naked.
FATHER JOE:
“Superior” is a strange word to use. I would prefer the phrase, “more decent.”
SW:
This is nothing but Puritanism and has little to do with Christianity, Islam or Judaism.
FATHER JOE:
You obviously have little knowledge and/or respect for the Bible which speaks in many places about being clothed and modest, both in the Old and New Testaments. The Koran and the Islamic faith give their adherents many rules about dress. You really do not know what you are talking about!
SW:
What is a real shame is that you have to spend the rest of your lives hating your bodies.
FATHER JOE:
This is a big assumption on your part. It may be that Christians so reverence the body as an expression of the person and as God’s great masterpiece that we clothe it out of respect and to protect it from degradation.
SW:
Why do males get to take off their shirts at the beach and females do not?
FATHER JOE:
My mother used to fret with my father to keep a shirt on outside. I suppose it is somewhat cultural. Certain places of the world, as in parts of Africa, women may indeed go topless without Church condemnation. However, such is not the way with Western culture. Here we are not talking about a mother nursing her child but a provocative use of nudity.
SW:
It is all to dominate and make money off of females.
FATHER JOE:
Women are wrongly exploited that is true. But rampant nudity would enhance such exploitation. The tragic truth in some cases is that women allow themselves to be abused and treated as meat instead of as persons with sacred dignity and immeasurable value.
SW:
It never used to be like this. Both sexes wore little or no clothing throughout 98-99% of human history.
FATHER JOE:
You know this for a fact? Given that modern man emerged as predominate after the ice ages, I doubt that our ancestors ran around naked. Clothing is not just for style, but for protection, too.
SW:
The Church and State make a lot of money off of your shame. The Church uses nudity as a device to lay guilt on everyone about sex.
FATHER JOE:
And how precisely does the Church make money off of this? If anything, hedonists get angry and leave the Church, taking their wallets and purses with them; although without pockets, where does one place a wallet? As for guilt, it has to do with God’s commandments and the natural law. Your argument is with the Creator, not the Church. If people have sex outside of marriage, they should feel guilty, because they are guilty.
SW:
The State gets large sums of revenue from the sale of pornography, while saying that they have passed laws to fight it.
FATHER JOE:
Yes, so does the telephone company and, oops, so do the owners of nude beaches. What, you thought men went to such beaches for the fishing? There is enough hypocrisy to go around. Nude beaches are also exploited by the culprits of pornography. Heck, today anyone with a digital camera or picture-taking phone becomes part of the problem.
SW:
Females should at least go top free, just like males do. I’ll bet that if you did for 10 or 15 minutes you would probably do so for the rest of your life.
FATHER JOE:
I do not think that most women would even want to do such an outrageous thing. Given their sensitivity about appearance, most women like the way that clothes make them look.
SW:
Turn back the clock to way it used to be. Start asking the males around you why their chests are considered normal and decent and women’s are not.
FATHER JOE:
Could it have something to do with the difference in how men perceive and respond to women’s breasts over how women generally react to most men’s chests?
SW:
It would be great if every State would encourage females to go one summer top free. Most would never put that top or one- piece back on.
FATHER JOE:
Pleeeease! Do not make me laugh! You would have states mandate nudity? You are like the Taliban in reverse. They would require women to cover up and you would urge them to strip. Is this comment a joke? Is this really a male poster? You cannot be serious!
MICHELLE:
Wonder why we aren’t born naked, God hates it so much. OH WAIT! WE ARE BORN NAKED! GO FIGURE…once your “BUMPY” parts show you become indecent hahaha you people are fools. This is NOT a male posting. Father Joe, I think you’re a [deleted]. Reading your post made my stomach turn.
FATHER JOE:
What God creates is good and most Catholics are not prudes. The post was done partially in humor, although the issue of modesty is important– not because the human body is bad but because of the effects from original sin and concupiscence.
MELISSA:
Question: Are bumpy parts prohibited on just females or males too? I think it should go both ways, don’t you? Therefore, I must recommend that all overweight men wear bras… It’s just fair. And all men must also wear swimsuits to their ankles. Cuz we all might get turned on by the “bumpy part” in an ankle, right? What happened to the freedom that Jesus offers us? I’m sorry, this just is not a clear representation of what Jesus came to proclaim. I believe in modesty, but not legalism. Good luck.
Who told them they were Catholic? Have they be eating of the tree of knowledge of which God had forbidden?
MS. D:
As someone mentioned, that clothing is grossly unfashionable. I don’t think it is necessary to go to the extreme to be considered modest. Also, I don’t think anyone needs to purchase your clothing to appear modest. A tank top and shorts can be purchased at any store. And not every one of them reveals cleavage or is unbearably tight. If you are really concerned about what girls wear, and consider yourself a practical person, rather than choosing the styles you prefer consider taking the time to listen to the girls that might consider wearing them. I hope whoever looks at your website knows that they don’t have to look like that to be modest.
LORILLA:
Does your wife wear these swimsuits or is she too embarrassed?
FATHER JOE:
Whose wife?
HENRY:
What some regard as modest, others find titillating or even fetishistic. The simplest way to eliminate eroticism of this kind is 100% nudity, Scandinavian style. What is familiar will not excite.
As a Catholic myself, I thought Catholicism was primarily concerned about bringing love to the world through the Risen Christ.
FATHER JOE:
I would still make the case for Christian modesty.
AL:
Joe, that’s sick. If you can’t handle swim attire, don’t go to the beach.
FATHER JOE:
Who is Joe?
BARBARA:
(God) forbid – just stay out of the sun and off the beach. Did not God design the human body? Are we to be ashamed and deny the beautiful creation called the human body? I think those people extolling the ‘virtues’ of modest swimwear must have their minds in the gutter. Methinks one doth protesteth too much!
BARBARA:
Muslim shmuslim. Please women, WHY would you want to propel us backward? This has NOTHING to do with religion – when will you realize this is about male dominance – stupid old men who want to feel powerful and seek to do this through the subjugation of women. Burn the burkha!
JEZZEBELLE:
If you want to save your young Catholic boys from temptation send them with a priest for 5 minutes! I bet they won’t want anything to do with sex for years! Maybe if you weren’t a dirty old man “bumpy parts” wouldn’t bother you so much.
Email: immodestwh–e@carolina.rr.com [This is not the actual email. I have deleted two letters from the attached vulgar name.]
FATHER JOE:
Am I supposed to take seriously a girl who calls herself Jezzebelle and Immodest Wh–e? Please get help and healing. I will pray for you.
JEZZEBELLE:
Why not? You take your crack pot beliefs seriously. The body is beautiful; the baggy crap used to cover God’s beautiful creation is not. The more you cover, the farther away we are from where God wanted us to be before Adam and Eve found the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Basically you’re telling women that because men are tempted they need to cover up. It doesn’t sound like my problem if I want to wear a bikini. I’m not going to go to hell so save your prayers for someone who agrees with everything you say.
FATHER JOE:
Jezze, the post was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I am surprised so many people read it as being totally serious. In other words, I think the baggy full-body suits are a bit much, even as they remind us of the importance of modesty. The body is beautiful. It is a marvel of design and shows the masterful hand of the Creator who fashioned it. Women should be concerned about how they dress, and willing to help men to be chaste, as they should also be. But there are swimsuits that both reveal a woman’s beauty and form while not catering to the pornographic. However, I am no expert in such things and would be the last person to catalogue what fashions are or are not acceptable. I never said you were going to hell. God bless and keep you in his love.
JEZZEBELLE:
And by the way, my mom gave me when I came out of what you are so concerned about covering efficiently.
FATHER JOE:
Are you a kid? The post about modesty had a point, but the comparisons to Islamic “baggy” dress and the like was tainted by parody. In other words, you may have taken it too seriously. [However, we should respect the choice of Moslems to select clothes which they feel honors God and preserves modesty.] I would not condemn the human body. It is God’s creation and whatever God creates is good. Modesty is simply a way to show respect to persons, particularly given the effects of original sin. Jezze, you should not label yourself as a harlot. Demand respect for yourself and show it to others. Thank God for your health and beauty. Enjoy your youth, but do not allow yourself to be exploited by anyone. God loves you. I will pray for you.
“With strength of numbers, our families and girls can admonish the other so-called Catholic females on the beach: ‘Have you no shame for exposing yourselves in underwear? Protestants, I mean Prostitutes wear more clothes than you!’”
HA HA HA, You are so highly amusing…not. That comment is extremely offensive and not the least bit amusing. You are a [deleted] who claims to be under the direction of God. Your attempt at humor [deleted] and I hope that [deleted] with all this [deleted] you are spreading.
FATHER JOE:
Put some clothes on and stop being so rude and vulgar. Immodesty is a problem that needs to be highlighted.
YENNI:
I love the range of Muslim swim suits from ZEHBA!
I have chosen one of their floral designs, which I believe to be a better choice for moderate women. I have bought it from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
A More Practical Alternative – My brother dresses his daughters in long board shorts. Yes, the kind male surfers wear and manage to find a way to do so very low slung and immodestly. Not so with these girls, though. For a top they again wear the surfer’s rash guard or ‘skin.’ These outfits look ‘cool’ in a surfer kind of way, allowing the girls to be very active in and out of the water, protecting them from the sun and lewd glances.
SLIGHTLY CONFUSED:
Dear Fr. Joe, as a young woman desiring to be modest to aid her brothers in Christ, is the best option to forego public co-ed swimming? Why should I reveal parts of myself at the beach I never reveal elsewhere in public? Seeking the help of a father, Slightly Confused
FATHER JOE:
A nice modest swimsuit, yes even with legs and arms exposed, would probably suffice. But really, I am no authority to tell girls what to wear. Your intention is to enjoy the beach and to go swimming. Mingling with nice guys and gals is also okay. A few young women I trust on this matter have some good suggestions and links. Here is their blog page:
Hi, Father Joe, I found your article when looking online for modest swimwear for myself and my little girls. It took me a moment to realize your article was tongue in cheek, but after that it really tickled me. I felt sad when I saw some of the vitriolic replies you received. Some people truly cannot take a joke. I just wanted to say thank you for trying to address a sensitive topic in a humorous way, and for the caring manner in which you answered the obviously wounded people who responded with those posts.
One thing that I don’t recall anyone mentioning in a post is the freedom modesty brings. When I wear modest clothes, I’m more comfortable and can jump and play with my kids without thinking “gee, what’s hanging out now?” I want my girls to have the same freedom. And I don’t think my mind is “in the gutter”!
For those worried about fashion, I would suggest they try asking their kids. My husband wants our girls to be modest, but he laughed at me when I suggested we purchase suits for them from a modesty site. He then showed the pictures to our oldest, age 9, expecting her to loudly refuse. (She is quite vocal and opinionated.) Imagine his surprise when she became really excited, and asked us to buy her one right away. Honestly, our little ones have a sense of what is right. They don’t want to feel exposed and naked in front of strangers. Get a clue, people! God bless you Father Joe!
On Saturday, March 24, I gave a talk on the Biblical Foundations of Marriage at the PreCana Classes held at St. Mary of the Assumption in Upper Marlboro, MD. Some of the notes are give in the immediately previous posts. There is a joke that if you get two ministers in a room, you will get three different interpretations of Scripture. Given that biblical interpretation is so volatile these days, I first gave the gathering my five basic presuppositions. Next, I gave the ten basic principles of marriage from Scripture.
Presuppositions As we Begin
1. The Scriptures are inspired by God and teach truth.
2. We must have the mind of the Church in how Scripture is interpreted.
3. The Bible is not a marriage manual.
4. Better understanding of Scriptural truth comes through a contextual approach.
5. The truth about marriage in the Bible is revealed in a progressive way, culminating in the New Testament.
A Few Basic Biblical Principles
While the Bible is not a manual for marriage, there are some basic principles we can derive from God’s inspired Word. Here are a few:
1. Men and women were made for each other. Most men and women are called to marriage.
2. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. They pledge themselves to each other in vows made in the sight of God.
3. The husband is the head of the home and the wife is its heart.
4. While the Bible speaks of the wife’s submission to her husband, there is mutuality in this surrender since the husband is commanded to practice sacrificial love for her, even offering his life as Christ did on the Cross.
5. The husband and wife are dependent co-creators with God.
6. The spouses are called to be helpmates to one another in grace and holiness.
7. Marriage is a vocation that takes precedence over other preoccupations. Your attention and energies must first be focused toward one another.
8. Marriage is a sexually intimate relationship between a man and woman.
9. Christian marriage infers a third in the marriage, Christ. Couples enter into the mystery of Christ and his Church. Our Lord identifies himself with the beloved.
10. Couples should come to the marriage bed undefiled. All sexual activity outside of marriage was regarded by the Jews as a violation of the commandment against adultery.
Over the years I have received a number of questions about disabilities and marriage. I am always reminded about one of my first ministerial tasks at the Washington Hospital Center in the District of Columbia. A 22 year old marine had experienced a training accident which left him a paraplegic. His young and very attractive fiancée was ever at his bedside, holding a hand which could no longer feel hers. He wanted to die. Certainly he did not want to tie her down to a man the doctors insisted would always be an invalid. Her response was to remain by his side and to offer tears of intercession for his pain and their lost dreams. Many years have passed since our encounter, and I am still unsure what might best be said in such a situation. It was not a time to come down on their hopes with a debate about the laws of nature and of the Church. I shared their space, offered them prayers and what consolation I could muster, but I could not take away the depths of their loss.
The marital act open to new life and seeking the good of the beloved is a sign and seal of the sacrament. The marriage covenant is consummated and renewed by it. Cognizant of our nature as bodily persons, the Church is also realistic and pragmatic enough to realize that marriages which shortchange sexual intimacy often fuel the fires of infidelity and alienation. The question here is not simply one of disability, but of the type of disability. Blindness, deafness, loss of certain limbs, etc. pose no such impediment to marriage. Even infertility does not negate the right of marriage if no deceit is present when the vows are made. However, can a person mentally deranged or seriously incompetent get married? No, not if they lack a conscious awareness of the nature and obligations of marriage. A paralyzed person, might be fully aware of the responsibilities of marriage, but be incapable of fulfilling them. The law of the Church in such cases is simply a reflection of the natural law. Having said this, once consummated, a tragic accident of such a nature would not abrogate the bond. The initial consummation, uncoerced and unimpeded by contraception, makes a sacramental marriage indissoluble.
What recourse would a couple have in getting married if one of the members is paralyzed from the neck or even from the waist down? Depending on the situation, the bishop himself may not be at liberty to grant a dispensation for marriage. This would especially be the case if there is no real possibility of recovery and consummation of the bond. Having said this, a very grave concern of the Church would be the use of oral sex as an attempted substitute for the marital act. While permissible in the old morals manuals as a precursor to intercourse, it cannot be sought as an ends unto itself. It falls on many of the same arguments as masturbation and homosexual interactions. Moving on, it is possible that some degree of medication and therapy might restore enough function to fulfill the marital act. In such a case, marriage could be permitted. Further, modern technologies have made available various pump mechanisms (requiring surgery) which would make possible an erection. If there is some transmission of seminal fluid, then again, marriage might very well be permitted. This position is not a reduction of the human person to a gross physicalism but the recognition that our living bodies, inextricable animated by souls, are the real expressions of our identity. Unless forsaken for the kingdom, the needs of these personal bodies– our very selves– cannot be underestimated. Having said all this, there is still another avenue a couple might pursue, although a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage. They could live their lives promising perpetual virginity along the lines of the Virgin Mary and the good St. Joseph.
Whatever a couple in such a fix decides to do, they will definitely know the Cross. It is my hope that the Church will always show them the redemptive value of joining our sufferings to the passion of Christ. What this world takes away, the next will restore. What this world leaves us, we can utilize for the coming of the next.
Discussion
SIMON:
Father, this is an interesting summary, and thank you for writing and posting. Here is my question. I have been married for almost 20 years. For the past 7, I have suffered from impotence due to diabetes. My wife and I were blessed with 4 children before the impotence occurred, and were always open to children in our marriage. Since becoming impotent, I have respected my wife’s opinion that we are to remain chaste from now on. Although I have tried all available impotence remedies, none work for us. I would never ask her to do anything she is uncomfortable with, but I cannot grasp how we are forbidden from being intimate even though we can no longer have intercourse. I understand that intercourse is meant to be both procreative and unitive. Impotency has removed our ability to be procreative, but why are we no longer allowed to be unitive, not through intercourse (which we would gladly do if it were at all possible), but through oral or digital stimulation? In the case of sterility, couples are encouraged to be unitive without being able to be procreative. This identification of intercourse as the only unitive act for couples suffering from the heartbreak of impotency pains me. My wife cries about the loss of intimacy. How can this be right? Must we lie together every night and never experience any physical love again? At least a priest’s or homosexual’s decision to remain celibate isn’t constantly tested every night by having the object of their desire lying right next to them. They can remove all “near occasions of sin.” Short of moving out of the marital bed, further removing some of the marital intimacy, I have no recourse to lessen the constant reminder and struggle to understand why the Church deems this to be better for us. It does help to get this off my chest. I do not feel comfortable discussing this with anyone.
FATHER JOE:
Dear Simon, I am sorry for the frustration both you and your wife feel. If you have not already, the problem of impotency might be something better discussed with a professional counselor sympathetic to Catholic teaching. When I discuss generalities, it can come across as cold. Certainly, as a celibate priest, I can in no way appreciate the full personal dynamics of such a situation. You are right; there is a vast difference between a man who sleeps alone and one who rests in bed with the female object of his desire and affection.
I am unable to give you the answer or clarification I know you wish to hear. Although I suppose given the nature of your bond, the moral gravity of an illicit act of affection might be lessened.
While impotency prior to a marriage is an impediment, it has no appreciable effect upon the sacrament afterwards, given that there has been consummation, not to mention, children.
While you suggest a parallel with the question of potency without fertility, the pivotal difference is that the mechanics of the marital act remain the same. It is still the type of act that naturally can result in children and to which the male and female bodies complement each other. Such cannot be said where male potency has been compromised and oral or digital manipulation is pursued.
The Church’s understanding of marital intimacy is more than sexual excitement and physical intimacy. It is the bonding of flesh and souls, with one another and with Jesus. Oral sex and digital manipulation might arguably be closer to masturbation than to the marital act. And while there might be some legitimacy when practiced in tandem with the marital act, the Church resists any complete substitution.
However, if you disagree, I would simply suggest that you regularly bring the matter up in confession, out of respect for Church teaching, and do the best you can to live the Christian life. God knows you love each other and any transgressions from weakness and longing between a husband and wife in such a situation would seem to be small matters to be kept between yourselves and your confessor. It may happen one day that some new therapy or medication may cure the problem. We cannot know the future and should struggle to do the best we can in the present.
There are priests out there who might say, go ahead do what you want, it does not matter. But I cannot in good conscience do that. What I can say is do not despair and know that God is infinitely forgiving and understands how unfair and difficult life can become. If we trip from time to time, he will help pick us up.
Finally, there are some wonderful ways to express intimacy that might restore the romantic elements you both knew when dating and in courtship. Candy and flowers always go a long way. Ballroom dancing is making a come-back. Picnics and boat rides are good. Holding each other tight on a porch swing and sharing lots of hugs and kisses is not so bad either… or so I am told. As spouses you can cuddle and flirt and if things get a little out of hand, well God called you together as lovers and in the heat of passion the boundaries might become blurred on occasion.
Trust each other.
Keep faith in God and in his mercy.
Respect the teachings of the Church.
I will be praying for you both.
ROBERT:
Dear Father Joe, I am a young Catholic man (age 24) engaged to be married and have been researching for personal interest “Josephite Marriage” or “White Marriage.”
As I understand it, under Canon Law, a couple where one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.
As I understand it, what a couple exchange in the marriage vows is the right to demand the marital debt from one another (if the request is reasonable and opportune).
In a “virginal marriage” this right is not used by the mutual consent of the couple. This right is mutually given up for the “sake of the kingdom.”
In a “virginal marriage” there is a mutual agreement not to use a right exchanged (the right to the marital debt).
In an antecedently and perpetually impotent couple, the right to the marital debt cannot be exchanged. Hence, there can be no marriage. One cannot exchange what one does not have.
Hence (from what I’ve gathered on the internet), no marriage can take place between a couple in which one or both partners are antecedently and perpetually impotent not even if the non-impotent party agrees to live a virginal marriage. God bless.
FATHER JOE:
Yes, Robert, you are quite right that canon law stipulates that “a couple in which one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.” Actually, Canon 1084 §1 says that it “invalidates the marriage.”
Note, however, that my post was also very tentative, saying that virginal marriage was a course that such a couple “MIGHT pursue” and that “a sexual dysfunction MIGHT be coercive.” I know the prohibition seems absolute on paper, but I have known cases where exceptions were made, particularly if the dysfunction were not absolute.
While confidentiality does not allow me to reveal many details, I can say this much:
1. Such cases were referred to the local bishop.
2. Only after a canonical, medical and pastoral investigation were decisions made.
3. Bishops themselves (in contact with Rome) gave dispensations from the canonical impediment (somewhat controversial because a few of us thought it might be elevating a juridical process over natural law) or argued that Canon 1084 §2 took precedence.
4. Both partners had to make a faith profession and renounce any and all sexual activity for the sake of the kingdom. It was understood, however, that if the problem of impotence should later find medical resolution, that the bishop had the authority to release them from their vowed celibacy.
5. A theoretical conjecture was noted whereby future medical discoveries might restore the partner’s lost sexual capacity.
6. A rather progressive interpretation was given to this law: “If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null” (Canon 1084 §2 ).
When bishops give such a dispensation and/or ruling, and the news goes public, as you might suspect, there is a lot of controversy. This is particularly so because not all bishops would grant such permission anyway. Speaking as a mere parish priest, I have serious reservations about it, myself.
One case that I recall revolved around the fact that the woman was the paralyzed man’s principal caregiver as well as his best friend. It was also taken into consideration that they were engaged before the accident. Being devout Catholics they wanted to be together, but did not want to commit the scandal of cohabitation outside of marriage. I heard of another case, where a couple already had a child out of wedlock (before the incident that caused paralysis), and they wanted to provide a home with both a father and a mother.
The situation and question can became increasingly complicated, as you can see.
Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.
The situation of allowing impotent men to marry, for the male is where the gravity rests in our theology, is a serious risk on many levels. People are sexual beings. A young woman married to a paralyzed man would naturally desire sexual congress with her husband; the real danger exists that improper acts might be committed and even adultery. The impotent and/or paralyzed man is also taking a terrible chance, as he may find himself emotionally frustrated at not being able to fulfill his marital duty toward his spouse. They might also commit the sin of invitro-fertilization after harvesting sperm cells. In the past, paralyzed people were almost always refused the marriage rite; however, medical discoveries have made people increasingly optimistic about recovery of some sensation and mobility. I am not sure yet if this current optimism is well enough founded on hard science to recommend liberality regarding impotence and freedom to marriage. If impotence is not reversed, the healthy spouse could readily leave the marriage and seek an annulment on the grounds that there was no consummation. Such cases go to Rome. In any case, this leaves the handicapped man open to abandonment.
Aquinas admitted that sexual copulation was not essential to marriage, thus why virginal marriages are even possible; however, he was quick to assert that marriage gives both spouses the natural right over the other spouse’s body for the purpose of the marital act. A permanently paralyzed and/or impotent man cannot consummate the bond, either in actuality or potency. Nevertheless, the female spouse has a right to that unitive act that furthers both fidelity and procreation.
It should be added that if a man is injured (becoming paralyzed and/or impotent) after marriage and its consummation with the marital act, the couple remain married and must endure with faithfulness and courage the plight that has come to them.
DON:
Please, someone tell me this particular column is a cruel joke, kind of like a news story from the Onion website.
FATHER JOE:
About a tragic subject, for sure, but this page is entirely serious.
MARC:
Father Joe, good reasoning in your discussion; my prostate removal has left me not only with ED but also with the absence of seminal fluid. Periodically, I use injections for an erection which “sometimes” is shared with my wife depending on timing, etc. When this happens, it is used to a good moral use well within Church guidelines. But on many other occasions, there is neither erection nor fluid. My wife and I feel that we need to keep our intimacy strong or the relationship will fade leaving both of us blind to each other’s love. Is oral not an option at our age of 64 and married 41 years? Thank you and confused.
FATHER JOE:
Sexual expression and/or the marital act are precious gifts to married couples. However, if the marital act should become difficult or impossible, then the couple should explore chaste forms of affection and signs of love, as with the initial courtship. Dinner and a movie, snuggling on the couch, holding hands and taking walks, kisses and cuddling, etc. You also have your memories.
LINDA:
I have been told by a priest that artificial insemination is allowed if one’s spouse is sterile by deformity (but not impotent) and that to alleviate the “frustration” of the woman to bear a child of her womb, the Church would not reject this couple or child. Is there precedent for this?
FATHER JOE:
What the priest told you is not true. Artificial insemination is forbidden without exception by the Church. The reasoning is that every human being should come into existence through the marital act. There can be no third party intervention in the act of bonding and mutual surrender of the spouses to each other and to divine providence. There is a precise act that God has instituted for the creation of human beings. Artificial insemination and IVF can create the mentality that children are commodities. Further, Christianity teaches that children are a gift from God; no one has a RIGHT as such to a child.
If a couple violate moral law and defy the Church, the Church would not reject the couple and/or the child. The child is innocent and cannot be faulted for the misbehavior of parents, no matter whether it be through illicit fertilization procedures or acts of rape or incest. The parents can know absolution if they express some small degree of sorrow and subsequent respect for Church authority.
MORGAN:
Father Joe, I met my wife in Medugorje. We wrote letters to each other over the years and fell in love. One day she said to me over the phone, “When you find out about me, you will have the choice to come or go.” I didn’t know then what it meant. I had many guesses in my mind. But none were reasonable. Then one night while in prayer I heard what I believe was the Lord. He told me what was wrong with her and asked me if I would love her. I said yes. A few moments later the phone rang and it was her. I told her what was wrong and she was surprised. I also told her that I would love her.
My wife had cancer when she was 2 years old. They took her uterus, vagina and eggs. Everything was taken leaving a scar and a clitoris. There is no penetration.
I went to Medugorje with her again and asked a priest if marrying her was the right choice despite her impotency. He said we could be together as long as we lived as the angels do.
She further went and talked to her local bishop who said marriage in the church was not possible, but we could do a legal marriage to be together so long as we live chastely.
The day we got married, it was not our intention. It was the only day my sister could organize with the judge, April 14, 2006— Good Friday of that year.
We have lived together for 3 years now. My wife does have feeling in her clitoris and I am a fully capable male. If we did do anything, would it be wrong for us to do? Can we get married in the Catholic Church? If not, do we seek this Virginal Marriage from our local bishop and would it constitute as a marriage inside the church?
Also, we ran into a priest who said our legal marriage was wrong, we couldn’t adopt kids, and he tried to make my wife promise we would separate after some time. He said he wouldn’t give her absolution in confession unless she promised to do so. She did not promise it. She came to me in tears.
I love my wife. She has stuck with me through a war, taken care of me, and we both share a cross. I couldn’t see myself with anyone else. Do I need to seek a miracle and if so, how do I do that?
FATHER JOE:
I would suggest that you seek out someone in the diocesan chancery and/or authorities in Catholic medical ethics. Infertility would not prevent marriage. The issue is impotency and the marital act. There are many points here which are unique to your case and would need to be explored by experts, both in medicine and in Church law. I can only speculate, but would it be possible to surgically refashion a type of female genitalia for her? I know there have been cases of men, particularly those with paralysis, who have had pumps surgically inserted to make the marital act possible. Oral and anal sex are disapproved as beneath human dignity and do not constitute consummation of the bond. A virginal relationship would pose no particular problem, but a Catholic marriage respecting sexual intimacy poses important hurdles for you both. Vowed virginal marriages in the Church are fairly rare, and usually require that a couple denounces vaginal sex, not that they are incapable of it.
I am sorry for the suffering you both endure and regret that you feel hurt by the hard counsel of a brother priest. I wish I had more answers for you or those you so desperately want to hear. Even if you should be asked to refrain from Holy Communion, go to Mass each Sunday and pray daily with each other. Yours are not sins of malice. Your struggle is with love, affection and the frailty of the human condition. You will both remain in my prayers.
FRANK:
Father Joe, re: Josephite Marriage, and your previous discussion of it, I fail to understand just what kind of union results from the exchange of promises, (of chastity and fidelity), in a marriage in which one of the principals is irreversibly impotent. Is there a real covenant? One which is just as binding civilly and religiously as in a normal marriage? Can’t understand why the healthy party in such cases can’t just, willy nilly, choose to walk away, without considering the medium of divorce or annulment.
FATHER JOE:
I did say that “a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage,” meaning that such an alternative would be problematical. The post was originally written some time back and I am not sure I meant a “Josephite marriage,” probably just an analogous spiritual friendship. A true Josephite marriage would imply that a couple freely opted not to exercise their genital prerogatives. Impotence means there is no choice, no potential for the marital act.
LAURA:
I came across this post today when trying to look into this issue as it has been bothering me. I may be wrong, but I thought that in the case of a “properly functioning” couple, John Paul II drew a distinction between oral sex for men and women. As I understand the teaching, since the female orgasm has nothing to do with conception, oral stimulation of the woman is permitted even if not in conjunction with a completed act of intercourse. At least that’s how I have had the teaching explained to me. If that’s the case, I still can’t wrap my head around why, for a couple for whom conception is impossible (i.e. a couple where one partner is impotent), the teaching would be any different. In other words, I didn’t think the “no oral sex without completed act of intercourse” rule was about conception and being open to life, not about mechanics of the act. If the couple would be open to life but for the impotence, I’m not sure how oral sex for this couple is different than the permissible oral sex on a woman in a normal-functioning couple.
FATHER JOE:
I do not recall the late pope making any such distinction that would permit female masturbation. The marital act is defined as that sexual act which is the type of act that is open to the transmission of human life. Pleasure for both men and women is an enticement for intercourse that is required for the propagation of the species. It is also an ingredient in the fidelity of the spouses. While the old moral manuals permitted a certain level of foreplay to facilitate the marital act, as well as manipulation of the female if the male climaxed too quickly, such stimulation apart from intercourse was frowned upon. As far as I know, nothing has changed. I suspect someone taught you wrong. Where is Pope John Paul II supposed to have said otherwise? The late pope gave an emphasis upon spousal fidelity that was sometimes eclipsed by procreation in Catholic thinking; but nothing in his theology of the body overturned basic morality.
LAURA:
I went back and looked at what I had read, and I suppose you are right that oral sex on a woman is not permitted in and of itself. But here is what I read (by Christopher West) that is still not quite what you are saying:
“The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).”
FATHER JOE:
Yes, he is correct. I have not written anything which contradicts this. Onanism is still a sin, no matter whether alone or with a partner. Strictly speaking, this regards the male “spilling the seed.” Foreplay that includes male climax is not foreplay. Rather, it has wrongly been substituted for the marital act. Similarly, after intercourse, the manipulation of the female by the husband so that she might climax has been judged as lawful by moralists.
LAURA:
I recognize that Christopher West is not an official authority in the Church, but if what he’s saying is true, while I’m wrong that female stimulation is permitted as an isolated act, it would appear that oral sex as foreplay is not “frowned upon” as you say, nor is some female stimulation prohibited even after sex (which does not confine it just to the realm of “foreplay”). This is also consistent with what is written in the book “Holy Sex,” written by a number of modern Catholic theologians.
FATHER JOE:
What West writes is okay, however, your commentary is not clear. Foreplay is only frowned upon if the male climaxes without true intercourse. But, as I said, then it is not foreplay but simply oral sex or masturbation. Give me the quote where I am wrong and I will correct it. Peace!
DAVID:
Are implants to treat impotence banned by Church teaching where there are no other alternative treatments to achieve a valid marriage?
FATHER JOE:
Implants, as such, are not banned.
DAVID:
Are surgically implanted pumps allowed as a means of overcoming impotence?
FATHER JOE:
It is a tricky and somewhat controversial business. Evidently bishops will sometimes give a dispensation for marriage after the implantation of such pumps. The argument is that with this intervention the impotence is no longer absolute. I am not sure if all bishops are happy with such a compromise. Particularly in cases of paralysis, it might make the mechanics possible, but the man would still not feel anything. How would this affect their mutual self-donation and bonding in the marital act? There may be little other recourse after marriage. If paralysis or injury brought about such serious impotence in a man prior to marriage, I would probably advise a reconsideration altogether. People are not machines and the flesh is weak. My perspective might seem cold, heartless and cynical. I do not intend to come across this way. But I have seen too many relationships of this sort, between a woman and impotent man, fall apart with the most devastating consequences. Could not such men settle for simple and chaste friendships?
EILEEN:
My question is not related directly to this topic, but I have been searching for an answer and cannot find it, so figured I’d try here.
Thirteen years ago, upon learning that I was pregnant with our sixth child, my husband, against my wishes, had a vasectomy. This nearly broke our marriage and it took a long time to recover. (He was not raised Catholic and is a convert who struggles with the ban on contraceptives.)
Since that time, there have been a few occasions (very few) where during sexual activity he has engaged in self-stimulation along with the mutual activity. Usually, this all ultimately ends up with penetration taking place and the completion of the sex act as it should; but on a couple of occasions, he has ejaculated outside of [the body].
As the ejacula no longer carries sperm, and as the intent at the beginning of the sexual activity was to complete internally, is this a mortal sin?
FATHER JOE:
First, the vasectomy was wrong and sinful for several reasons. It is regarded as a mutilation of the human person and the generative powers. It reflects a contraceptive mentality wherein the openness to human life which is intrinsic to the marital act is spurned. Upon repentance, and where possible, the Church would also recommend repair of the damaged faculties.
Second, there may have been emotional healing, but an important element of the sacramental reality of your marital covenant remained wounded.
Third, given the vasectomy, it would seem that the matter of a ban upon artificial contraceptives would be a “personally” mute point. He has embraced perpetual infertility over periodic sterility. Many lifelong Catholics also dissent upon this matter. He may have been a convert, but did he “convert” enough?
Fourth, while an element of manipulation may be understood as foreplay and preparation for the marital act; such activities must not be pursued in themselves or seen as independent. Human beings are not animals and the marital act should not be reduced to cold mechanics. It is ideally a self-donation and surrender to the beloved. While accidents do happen, we should still be watchful against the sin of Onanism.
Fifth, the intention behind the actions that surround the marital act do have moral weight. However, the fact that the ejacula is deficient or void of sperm does not matter in this situation of self-manipulation or arousal outside the marital act.
JAN:
Erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment has evolved a lot from traditional times. Earlier this problem was believed to be caused by psychological factors only, but now we know better, so have the treatments.
ROSIE:
What do you do when you have been married for nearly 9 years and your husband has never been able to properly [fulfill the marital act]? The cause being diabetes but you didn’t know this until recently. He is able to bring you to climax [through manipulation] but you find this, although better than nothing, very much unsatisfactory. Also you can’t talk about how you feel with him. Also facing the temptation of other males on the scene for which intercourse would be very easy. Is this a real marriage or should it be annulled?
FATHER JOE:
Dear Rosie, I am far from an authority upon such issues and this is a somewhat delicate question. However, there are a few points I would like to note:
First, as a married couple you should be able to dialogue with your spouse about your personal needs in this relationship. It might be hard, but nothing can be done to help the situation unless you work together.
Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.
Third, I would urge you to avoid both actual temptation and fantasies toward adultery. Take the matter of divorce and annulment off the table. You have been married for almost a decade. Fight for your marriage and love one another, “for better or for worse” until death do you part.
Fourth, do not be afraid to work with a doctor who might be able to help you both. Not all physical problems can be overcome, but sometimes situations can be much improved. Peace!
ALLIE:
I have a question. You said, “Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.”
And later, you suggested that the woman who had surgery for cancer at age 2 that removed her vagina (and uterus, and ovaries), have surgery to create an artificial vagina. Can you help me understand Church law regarding these types of surgeries? And why have you tied male sexual pleasure as a necessity of the marital act? Especially since, as you pointed out, “Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.”
It seems to me that whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple should be permissible, whether that is allowing impotent couples to come together in intimacy of their own choosing or allowing couples to marry who know that what they currently have in a physical relationship (i.e., paraplegics, etc.) is all they can lawfully have. I should think that the binding thread here is LOVE. Having read the entire page today, it seems to me that the unlawful marriage of the couple from Medjugorie is far more of a loving union than Rosie’s marriage of almost a decade. My heart goes out to all the couples here. You are struggling with much. And I am struggling to understand myself.
FATHER JOE:
The marital act is defined by the Church in light of natural law. Other forms of intimacy and/or sexual congress have neither the capacity to consummate the marital covenant nor any significant degree of fecundity. The general subjective experience (which often includes some degree of pleasure) furthers the good of fidelity between spouses. My emphasis is not directly upon pleasure but upon the capacity of a couple to engage in non-contraceptive sexual intercourse as a requirement for marriage.
As for the reconstruction of genitalia, the morality hinges upon the repair of something impaired, as through accident or cancer. Such repair is not always possible. Further, no such reconstruction should seek to alter the external gender in contradiction to that given at birth and in the DNA. The Church opposes so-called sex-change operations and views such measures in terms of self-mutilation and the unlawful or immoral damaging of physical faculties.
You would accept as legitimate “whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple.” However, by extension, this is also the erroneous argument posed by homosexuals seeking the recognition of their unions as a form of marriage. The problem is that the marital act between a man and woman, defined as non-contraceptive vaginal intercourse, allows for no substitutions. One can feign the act, either through choice or because the actual act is impossible, but such neither consummates nor renews the marital covenant. Instead of a virtuous act which brings grace, there would be the commission of sin instead. That is the Catholic view, again based upon divine positive law and especially natural law. Love and friendship are indeed important. But one can have both outside of sexual relationships. Indeed, as a celibate priest, I have dedicated my life to the love of God and to the service of his people. Marriage is not the only sacrament of love. The ordination of a priest is a sacrament of love. Indeed, our common baptism into the family of God is the first and most basic sacrament of love. The right to marriage is not absolute. If it were, we would have to pass out spouses just as we distribute bread to the hungry. It does not work that way.
Marriage is a natural right. However, the Church reasonably asks couples to refrain from this right until they have obtained adequate psychological maturation. This coming-of-age is indicated by comprehending marriage as a life-long, complete commitment between a man and woman. They would also have to understand that this relationship is orientated toward mutual love and help (fidelity) and to the procreation and education of children. The background to this awareness is a realistic appreciation of the various difficulties in marriage and how they might handle them. They must be free from coercion in making this promise of a shared life and possess integrity of intention or will, resolved to endure any hardship.
Despite the shameful statistics, the Church is almost alone in teaching that marriage is an unbreakable bond. Non-Christians may know it as the noblest of natural contracts; Christians can embrace it as a sacrament, a covenant through which Christ gives grace. St. Paul tells us that Christian marriage is a sacred sign that reflects the lasting unity of Christ, the groom, with his bride, the Church.
A married couple extracts life from out of their love. First, in their reciprocal fidelity, they nurture and give life to each other. Second, in their openness to children, they cooperate with God in the act of creation. They summon into existence separate individuals who will endure for all eternity. What other human work could ever compare with this? Rather than a onetime event, they continue to give life to their children by caring for their physical needs. They must also aid in their spiritual development, laying foundations for growth in faith and holiness. This latter responsibility cannot be over-emphasized. Third, growing in holiness themselves, the couple’s love and service is a powerful witness, giving life to all whom they meet. Seeing their faithful commitment, we are reminded that this kind of love has not utterly passed from the world.
Jesus raised marriage to the level of sacrament. Although we do not know the precise occasion of its institution, the Church early on recognized that the reality of this relationship was transformed by the commitment of two baptized Christians in a covenant of love. Indeed, Christ identifies himself with the beloved.
Marriage makes two people helpmates to each other in seeking holiness. Spouses are to assist each other in becoming saints who will share eternal life with Christ in heaven. If all their earthly preoccupations bypass this objective, then there is something defective in their love. It must be an ingredient— even if it is tragically reduced to one spouse praying for the other to return to faith practice or to join the Church. Ultimately, sacramental grace brings confidence to the couple that God will help them to persevere in love, fidelity, and holiness.
The sacrament of marriage has certain effects:
1. An invisible bond that will last until the death of one of the spouses; and
2. The graces of the sacrament.
The graces of the sacrament include all those necessary to maintain their collaboration and mutual love in all aspects of their shared life— graces to confront and conquer all threats, troubles, misunderstandings, illness, or anxiety. If we walk with the Lord, his promise of grace and his presence will remain with a marriage for a lifetime. It must be made clear that one might receive the sacrament of matrimony with its permanent bond, but without the graces to faithfully live it out. Indeed, a root cause for divorce among Christians is in this regard; serious sin would lower the sacrament to a sacrilege. This is no light matter. Mortal sin destroys our relationships, both to God and to one another. However, even in these unfortunate cases, with the restoration of saving grace through the sacrament of reconciliation, the graces of marriage would be made fully available.
There are many duties and responsibilities in marriage. Chief among these are fidelity, cohabitation, and mutual help (especially with offspring). Statistics reveal that the Catholic divorce rate is rapidly approaching the national average wherein half of all marriages fail. Interestingly, a Gallup poll discovered that couples who pray together for a few minutes every day and who regularly attend Sunday Mass have a much lower failure rate. Indeed, 98% of such marriages survive and flourish. This says something wonderful about the intimacy of prayer between spouses and God— it is a visible testimony about the positive influence of grace living in true Christian marriages.
This is the fifth installment in this extended dialogue about homosexuality. I must warn the reader that not everyone is polite and few are timid about remarks. The majority express a strong negativity to the disorientation. Unfortunately, one of its strongest proponents was an avowed atheist. I was hoping that we might more deeply explore how some try to reconcile such a lifestyle with a professed Christian faith. The atheist rejects Christian morals because the Bible is just another book to him. Natural law often fails because he rejects intelligent design and order. The active homosexual person who tries to be a Christian would face serious quandaries regarding the Scriptural prohibitions. Does he argue that the Bible is not inerrant and fully inspired? Does he contend that certain teachings are prejudiced and so historically and culturally situated that they no longer speak to us? Would he contend that just as slavery was tolerated, core Scriptural values would override and come to the fore with later reflection about homosexuality? Might such dissenters merely ignore parts of the Bible and our sacred tradition, giving greater gravity to secular humanism and present-day social engineering? These questions really did not arise in this conversation.
DURCK:
Homosexuals are imposing their standards upon me and my children by claiming that such a lifestyle is acceptable and by telling my children that they, too, can live the gay lifestyle. Yes, the gay agenda is to force (yes, force) society to proclaim homosexual and lesbian unions as legitimate and valid. Absolutely not! All of you can talk until you’re blue in the face— I’m not buying any of it.
And when gay couples adopt children, they’re bringing yet a third party into their madness.
Who do any of you think you’re kidding?
MICHAEL:
Durck— you’re right. This is an abuse of the English language. We call them homosexual lifestyles right? Let’s call them what they really are. They’re death styles.
When I was young, my parents took our family for a Sunday ride through historic Bucks County, Pennsylvania. We drove through a town called New Hope. That was the first time in my life that I had witnessed two men kissing each other in public. One of the men was wearing a full length mink coat and then exposed himself to the other man. What stands out the most in my mind was the negative reactions of my parents. This left an indelible impression upon me for the rest of my life. My conscience told me how sick and how wrong that was. I’m sure that my late father, given the chance, would have kicked the crap out of them, only because his children were there.
A gay couple should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child either. Children need both a mother (female) and a father (male).
We have to fight today to keep normal things normal. It isn’t natural or normal for two people of the same sex to be physically attracted to each other. GET SOME HELP.
MORSE:
So Michael, when I see stories of Christians and Catholics abusing children, should I assume that every Christian and Catholic is a child abuser?
Perhaps Christians and Catholics should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child. Because of COURSE they’re ALL just horrible child molesters. [sarcasm]
FATHER JOE:
Okay, everybody let us try to place nice.
MORSE:
Why? I’m using his logic. Because two men were once lurid in public, he is casting down judgment on all homosexuals. Why should I not do the same to Christians?
FATHER JOE:
It may be that he could have better made his case. Remember, Christians presume that the believer who lives out his faith is properly disposed to virtue. By contrast, active homosexuality would undermine one’s moral standing, even if discrete. It is still sinful. While there are hypocritical Christians, there are also many homosexuals who reinforce the stereotype of low morals by public acts of lewdness and dissent.
DURCK:
Glad you agree, Michael. I’m sure your late father was incensed that his young son had to witness such a spectacle, but, seeing you today, he would have no cause to worry of any negative effect that sight may have had on you.
My heart breaks for children, especially today— the smut and the insanity they’re subjected to is absolutely criminal. What infuriates me the most is the brainwashing that’s imposed upon them while they’re still so vulnerable.
I know that homosexuals and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and that we should treat them respectfully, but I’m finding the task of loving them increasingly more difficult.
LARA:
See what I mean, Michael, that “anger within?” Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life, so since they’ve chosen not to, they presume the right to clobber us for our every foible. Speaking of straining on gnats and swallowing camels…
MICHAEL:
Morse— for your info, neither Christians and Catholics, nor priests hold a monopoly on child abuse and pedophilia. That’s what deceived and deluded people try very hard to believe.
You can also thank Almighty God that you weren’t raised by either two males or two females, or were you? If I struck a nerve with you GOOD!
Gay is not OK. If you’re a “CHRISTIAN” then you’ll agree because homosexuality in the site of God is an ABOMINATION.
Be it known that I DON’T HATE HOMOSEXUALS! I LOVE THEM BECAUSE GOD DOES. What I hate is sinful behavior, especially in public and in clear view of innocent children.
Dear Lara, they don’t have any defense. That’s why they’re angry.
If their biological parents never came together in that most sacred act, they wouldn’t be here defending their abnormal and sinful behavior.
MORSE:
Christians who live out their faith are virtuous? Well, the majority of homosexuals are also virtuous. You happen to think you have a monopoly on virtue. The rest of the world disagrees with you.
“Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life.”
No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so. A book saying something does not make it so.
FATHER JOE:
Morse, I am using the word “virtue” or “virtuous” not simply in reference to natural virtues but that which is brought about by grace and is supernatural. I would hardly think an atheist could tell me who has and has not been so favored by God, particularly since you deny his existence. How often have I spoken about Catholics as not only a people of “the Book” (the Scriptures) but of a rational faith, too?
Homosexual acts also violate the natural law.
LARA:
The “rest of the world” disagrees with Father Joe?
Oh, please. That’s quite a hopeful stretch of the imagination, I must say, and not only painfully (for you) inaccurate, but a bold-written lie.
The Roman Catholic Church and her priests show more genuine, loving compassion toward you as homosexuals and lesbians than any other group on earth, and even their love you reject and ridicule. Why? Because they refuse, again, out of love for you— to pat you on your head and tell you, “There, there, my child, live as you please with a clear conscience…”
And you think the left cares for you? No, they’re using you, that’s why they couldn’t care less how you live.
“No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so.” No, there isn’t a good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral, but there are plenty of horrible reasons, aren’t there? No big surprise, either, that the Holy Bible is considered “just a book” to you. If the Bible condoned homosexuality, you wouldn’t view it as just a book, then. I, or anyone else, don’t have to quote you a good reason why homosexuality is immoral— you already know that it’s immoral. Oh, yes you do.
Morse, you’re at the wrong site to seek the validation you’re after, but there are plenty of sites that will tell you what you want to hear. Why waste your time here?
ISHMAEL:
Father Joe, yes God can only judge homosexuals and it’s true that their acts are against God’s laws. But we should respect homosexuals and treat them very kindness and respect.
I don’t have a problem with homosexuals but I don’t agree with the sexual stuff they do. But I believe God will judge us at the same time that he judges homosexuals. I believe the things that homosexuals do is sinful, but that being gay is not a sin.
LEIGH:
OK, everyone is quick to judge the homosexuals whether men or women; but, at the same time, we have Catholic priests molesting BOYS. Maybe you should put all your time and energy on something that matters?
FATHER JOE:
I have spoken about the tragedy of such men in the Church, too. But someone has observed that while not all homosexuals are pedophiles (or pederasts), most of the cases of such sins against children by churchmen have been homosexual in orientation and act.
LEIGH:
I have read the Bible and know what it says about homosexuality. I also know that I will only be judged by God. None of you have the right to throw judgment on anyone else. You are no one to say what is right and wrong.
FATHER JOE:
You have read the Bible, really? What you say is not what the Bible says.
LEIGH:
I know straight people and gay and most of the straight marriages I know (not all) end in adultery and lies. Meanwhile, spouses in all the gay marriages I know have the upmost respect for each other.
FATHER JOE:
You would recommend perverse relationships by castigating marriage? No, you are very much in error.
LEIGH:
I believe a person cannot help who they fall in love with and are attracted to. I am not saying gay is better than straight; I just think everyone should worry about their own relationships and give the gay community a break.
FATHER JOE:
I think we already give them a break. We love them, despite their sinful behavior. However, it would be a false love to say nothing regarding actions which offend God and our nature. We speak not as a perfect people or as kin to the self-righteous Pharisee, but as sinners who know Christ’s mercy.
ISHMAEL:
Father Joe, God does not judge homosexuality because that’s not good.
Homosexuality is not a sin. It is just the ministers out there trying to get people to believe otherwise. God will never judge because he respects and accepts them for who they are. If they are God’s kids, then why does he judge?
FATHER JOE:
Sorry Ishmael, but something objectively wrong is not right just because we want it to be otherwise. The ancient Jews condemned homosexuality as repugnant to God and enacted severe punitive measures against it. Likewise, both Christian Tradition and Scripture are clear in its prohibition and in how such activity deprives one of membership in the kingdom of heaven. Your view of parenthood is flawed; it is a role not of blind toleration, but one where guidance about right and wrong is offered. Divine justice speaks to the demands of natural law and divine positive law. Yes, there is infinite love and wondrous mercy, but never at the cost of truth or by compelling collaboration with moral evil. We are creatures and it is not the place of the creature to tell the Creator that he cannot judge us. We belong to him. Our posture should always be that of humble obedience. God does not merely accept us for who we are but calls us to repentance and conversion. If you do not know that then you are a stranger to the Gospel.
WAYNE:
Father Joe, I am who I am and not defined by my sexuality alone. I feel that I am no less one of God’s children than a heterosexual. I can only hope that God is more compassionate than you are.
I have spent my life trying to be a good person by loving and being considerate of my neighbor and sharing my time, talent and treasure.. I pray and participate at Mass, not just attend, on a regular basis and have faith that God will judge me for all I was in life, not just my sexuality.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
FATHER JOE:
Given the weather, I have a few snow balls, but no stones to throw. It is NOT my intention to be inconsiderate or mean. I am, however, a Catholic priest, and as such am obliged to teach and believe what the Church holds to be true. Yes, you are not utterly defined by your orientation; however, although you admit this, you then demand a full acceptance of your homosexuality or else. Sorry, that just does not wash. Like any unmarried heterosexual, you are called to a chaste life without genital or sexual activity. Since homosexuals cannot marry one another, you must then practice perpetual celibacy. As long as you are free from mortal sin, there is nothing that prevents you from the full and active participation in the Mass and Holy Communion. This is a statement of fact. Nothing is said to hurt you. God loves you and so does the Church. But all of us must obey God. The moral code on such questions is quite clear. I will pray for you.
ISHMAEL:
So Father Joe, are you are saying that if you were not a Catholic priest you would agree with homosexuality? You said, “God loves you and so does the church,” but then you said, “All of us must obey God.” It sounds like you are saying God does not love Wayne. It sounds like you are against homosexuality, Father Joe!
FATHER JOE:
No, priest or not, I would accept and believe what the Church teaches. However, as a priest I have a special commission to preach and to teach. It is not my place to substitute the whims of men for the truths of God and his holy Church. The Church rightfully opposes homosexual activity as wrong and as sinful. Homosexuality is a disorientation, a disease of the mind. God loves us all, including homosexuals. However, he wants us to LOVE HIM enough to obey him and to make the needed sacrifices to do so. We all struggle but not all our struggles are the same. Deviant sexual attraction and practices do not constitute a legitimate human right, nor should they be encouraged or normalized. Civil society is very wrong about this. There should even be civil sanctions against such crimes. Until recently sodomy was listed among the vices that were punishable under law.
MARCIA:
Anatomically speaking, the anus was not designed as a sexual orifice nor was man’s seed intended to be planted in feces. Male and female were created by God sexually different so as to procreate the species. Going beyond that design by anyone is perverse.
Homosexual acts are perverted or nicely put, “disordered.” There really is no argument here since the created design of male and female was quite simple and meant for the most basic intellect to understand.
To argue that God allows or accepts anything else negates everything the Scriptures tell us. Sex in and of itself is not necessary for love to exist.
ISHMAEL:
Dear Father Joe, why is the Church so against gay people? It is not a disease of the mind you dumb priest! The problem is ministers out there trying to get people to hate homosexuals. Do you dislike gay people?
FATHER JOE:
I do not hate anybody. But I am a priest and a Christian. I trust God’s Word on this subject. My appreciation of natural law substantiates my religious beliefs. I believe that homosexuals are called to lives of celibate and chaste love. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Sexual expression outside of marriage is a sin.
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.
MARIA:
A Few Basic Biblical Principles
Marriage is a natural right. However, the Church reasonably asks couples to refrain from this right until they have obtained adequate psychological maturation. This coming-of-age is indicated by comprehending marriage as a life-long, complete commitment between a man and woman. They would also have to understand that this relationship is orientated toward mutual love and help (fidelity) and to the procreation and education of children. The background to this awareness is a realistic appreciation of the various difficulties in marriage and how they might handle them. They must be free from coercion in making this promise of a shared life and possess integrity of intention or will, resolved to endure any hardship.
This is the fifth installment in this extended dialogue about homosexuality. I must warn the reader that not everyone is polite and few are timid about remarks. The majority express a strong negativity to the disorientation. Unfortunately, one of its strongest proponents was an avowed atheist. I was hoping that we might more deeply explore how some try to reconcile such a lifestyle with a professed Christian faith. The atheist rejects Christian morals because the Bible is just another book to him. Natural law often fails because he rejects intelligent design and order. The active homosexual person who tries to be a Christian would face serious quandaries regarding the Scriptural prohibitions. Does he argue that the Bible is not inerrant and fully inspired? Does he contend that certain teachings are prejudiced and so historically and culturally situated that they no longer speak to us? Would he contend that just as slavery was tolerated, core Scriptural values would override and come to the fore with later reflection about homosexuality? Might such dissenters merely ignore parts of the Bible and our sacred tradition, giving greater gravity to secular humanism and present-day social engineering? These questions really did not arise in this conversation.
Blogger Priest 