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.
Msgr. Pope followed up his post on fornication and cohabitation with one on homosexuality. This is a real hotbed issue (no pun intended) and I suspect that in the face of growing political and social acceptance, many preachers and religious leaders are hesitant to take it on in a critical fashion. Given curt responses from Pope Francis and Cardinal Dolan which were quickly misconstrued, many are wrongly anticipating a change in the Church’s stance toward homosexual acts. This just is not going to happen. Our respect for natural law and for the authority of Scripture and Tradition make any compromise absolutely impossible on this issue. The mechanisms in place that safeguard the deposit of faith will allow no repudiation of basic moral truths— what befell the Episcopalian churches can never happen in the Catholic Church.
Men and women are their bodies. They are ordered toward marital union and propagation. Same-sex unions are inherently disordered and closed to biological fruitfulness. That is one of the reasons why the first element of the faith attacked was our adoption services. The Boston and Washington Archdioceses had to shut down their programs because of legal insistence that children be adopted by homosexual and lesbian couples. We could not do it. The Church cannot deliberately participate in an act that would cooperate with moral evil or place children into a position of suffering spiritual harm. Homosexual acts neither further the end of procreation nor foster genuine fidelity or union between spouses. Homosexual marriage is regarded by the Church as an empty secular legal construct which is, in fact, an outright deception or fiction. Both natural bonds and sacramental unions require the proper matter of men and women… their whole selves and bodies.
Msgr. Pope is quite right that both the Old and the New Testaments reject homosexual activity. Indeed, some contend that just quoting Old Testament sanctions for homosexuality would constitute a hate crime. St. Paul is clear; it is in conflict with the values of Christ’s kingdom. While certain revisionist churches come straight out and criticize God’s Word as wrong (culturally conditioned stereotypes over immutable objective truths), there are also biblical authorities who engage in fanciful exegetical gymnastics to make provision for such acts despite black-and-white condemnations. They point to their credentials or alphabet soup after their names as if that makes them a suitable parallel magisterium. Desperate to find loopholes, they propose theories and speculation as if they are fact. They insist that only a homosexuality, really a pederasty that targeted children was condemned— not consensual relationships between adults. They argue that the divine prohibition only targeted lustful promiscuity— not faithful monogamous and loving relationships. They would have us take their word on this, as neither the “letter” nor the “spirit” of God’s Word makes such strained distinctions. It is a contemporary reading into Scripture what is not there. It is much like a loose constructionist arguing for rights or interpretations in the U.S. Constitution which the framers never imagined. They would do for faith what politically motivated judges would do for the laws of our land. Redefinitions of marriage are an instance where both secular law and religious truth are corrupted.
Jesus is not recorded as having explicitly condemned homosexuality, but this works against the revisionists in that he did clearly override the Mosaic writ of divorce. Silence can only be interpreted to mean affirmation of the traditional opposition. Further, the living Word is manifest both with the incarnation and the Gospels and with the entirety of inspired Scripture. The teachings of St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Timothy and St. Luke are also the teachings of Christ! That which is objectively true does not lose its binding force. We stand under God’s Word, not above it. The Pope and the bishops pass on the saving deposit; they cannot revoke or utterly change it. As much as they might want it to be otherwise, they do not have the authority to make homosexual acts good or acceptable before almighty God.
The Church has made an ardent appeal to natural law, especially to those who do not share our faith. We have seen this in reference to racial and ethnic inequality, artificial contraception, abortion and now homosexuality. Dissenting revisionists would have us do to our bodies what we would never do to our automobiles— there is a refusal to acknowledge the specifications of human design as that of two complementary genders. Men and women are made for each other. Homosexual sex would be like trying to run your car on molasses instead of gasoline. You are not going to get very far. Homosexual unions are not going to generate children. Cars filled with molasses are not going to be speeding down the highway— they will be stopped alongside the road, ruined for the purpose for which they were really made. Same sex unions often damage their bodies and health, resorting to parodies of the marital act, a feigned intercourse. Like jigsaw puzzles, the pieces are damaged and do not fit no matter how frustrated people try to force them.
Msgr. Pope rightly writes, “Whatever pressures many may wish to place on the Church to conform; however they may wish to ‘shame’ us into compliance by labeling us with adjectives such as bigoted, homophobic, or intolerant— we cannot comply with their demands.”
The civil rights won for ethnicity and gender would now be wrongly extended or ascribed to sexual orientation. Opposition of any form will be counted as discrimination. Within only a few generations, homosexuality has gone from being criminalized to being a “right” protected under law. Indeed, now the criminals would be those who oppose it. Do they see this as “pay-back” time? Here we find the bottom line and we must be prepared to pay a heavy price for any non-compliance. Try as we must to make a distinction between orientation and activity; the truth be said, gays increasingly spurn with impunity any such delineation. They argue, “Can you hate black skin without hating the black man? Can you view males as superior to females without belittling the gifts of women? Then how can you say that you hate the sin of homosexual sex while loving the person who defines himself by such intimacy?” We must be ready and careful in how we answer.
My priest friend cites the universal catechism:
[CCC 2357] Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
[CCC 2358] The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
[CCC 2359] Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
It is probable that there are many in the Church who wishes that our doctrine on human sexuality was different. However, we are constrained by Scripture, Tradition and the Natural Law. We must not usurp God’s authority. Illustrative of how want to play God on this issue, medical research has gone into how lesbians might clone or mix DNA through clinical intervention. It has been speculated that homosexual men might be augmented to allow them to carry a child in the linings of the stomach. Already, they seek adoption of children and IVF is routinely used for surrogates and lesbian insemination. Proponents are feverishly striving to make right that which is blatantly wrong.
As Christians we must accept the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman. It is a relationship that is to endure until the natural death of one of the spouses. The marital act which they share must always further the oneness of their union, promoting the fidelity of the spouses and (in type) open to procreation. Sexual congress outside of marriage is morally wrong and sinful. Thus, by definition, acts of masturbation, fornication and homosexuality are wrong and sinful. All sexual sin is serious, but certain sins are worse than others. Obviously, when another person is dragged down with us, the sin takes in the accomplice. Men and women who have sex outside of marriage do wrong, but as according to nature. Homosexual acts are not only wrong, but are counted as contrary to properly oriented human nature. Men and women who are not married are called to live chaste and virginal lives. Exceptions are NOT made for heterosexual couples planning to get married or for homosexuals who want to take platonic friendships to the so-called next level.
We should not hate homosexuals. We should avoid various forms of discrimination against them as persons. However, we can do nothing to support or enable a homosexual lifestyle. This is where we find the clash today. Oppose homosexuality and you are stamped as bigoted and hateful. There may even come a time when we will face hefty fines and even imprisonment. There have already been cases where people have been legally compelled to take re-education or sensitivity classes.
I have known a number of heroic homosexuals who embraced celibacy, living out their need for intimacy in the COURAGE community in terms of daily prayer, meditation and Christian service. We all need both to love and to be loved. COURAGE is an affiliation established by my cousin the late Fr. John Harvey. These men and women are wonderful witnesses and signs of contradiction to our hedonistic times. Sadly, they are ruthlessly attacked by other homosexuals. Despite negative charges, they do not betray who they are; rather, they affirm their identity and struggles while placing the weight on their Christian discipleship and obedience. They have not been abandoned by God or his Church. God’s grace can empower all who are disposed to his goodness and presence. We are all broken. We are all sinners. It is in Jesus that we find the beginnings of healing and our ultimate salvation.
If one would like to pursue an instructive bible study on this question, Msgr. Pope directs the reader to the following texts:
Numbness in conscience inflicts many of the members of our modern society. It is as if people have lost the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. The values of traditional faith and Scripture are not taken into consideration as credible when moral decisions are made. Further, there is a rupture between our nature and the laws that can be discerned by reason. This leads to a profound disconnect from objective reality. Instead, the notion that man is the measure of all things is extended to a fanciful absurdity. The unborn child in the womb is denied the personhood that comes along with his very presence. The purpose of the marital act is reduced to recreation with the reproductive ends subtracted by contraception. The bodies of men and women are complementary and yet same-sex attraction is made into a legal right even though it is a fiction and not fact. The aberration is counted as normal and any emphasis upon genuine normalcy is discounted as intolerance. The institution of marriage is bombarded by all sorts of threats: divorce, adultery, fornication, cohabitation, etc. Any stigma or embarrassment for having children outside of wedlock is measured as insensitive and mean-spirited. Marriage is regarded as a mere piece of paper, even by Catholics who were taught that it was a sacrament to give grace.
What a mess with which we are living!
Msgr. Pope rightly laments on his blog that many regard “living” in sin as “no big deal.” The misnomer here is that one does not really LIVE in sin; instead, one begins to DIE in sin. Sin by its very definition brings forth suffering and death. It alienates us from the one who created us and from the life present in the soul.
Pastors are challenged when they preach about sin and punishment. They are challenged for stressing judgment when our Lord was apparently all about mercy and love. However, the dispensation of Christ is neither magic nor capricious. You have to love in return. You have to want to be forgiven. Too many live as if there will be no judgment and no hell. While the catechism teaches about the universal call to salvation, this is not the heresy of universalism. God’s gifts can be ignored or rejected. Using a medical analogy, a doctor might be able to treat you but you must be willing to seek him out. The divine physician would heal our souls, but millions prefer the spiritual sickness that comes with hedonism, greed or a spiritual ennui.
I like straight talk and yet such is almost always found offensive by someone. People these days do not like to be told their business. There is an arrogance to sin today that has smothered the guilt that once brought contrition and repentance. Do you want proof? Tell a couple who are having sex outside of marriage that unless they repent they will go to hell. See how they respond. “What we do is none of your business! Who are you to talk to us that way? You can go to hell, yourself! Who are you to judge? We love each other, what is so wrong with that? Who is being hurt by what we do?” The fact that it violates God’s Word is given little or no measure in their evaluation. What they are really saying is this: “No one can tell us what to do, not you and NOT God!”
Msgr. Pope gives us a list of Scriptures that we would do well to review. If we believe that the Bible is God’s Word, then we should take to heart the saving message:
Once upon a time there was a church founded on God’s entering into human history in order to give humanity a path to eternal life and happiness with him. The Savior that God sent, his only-begotten Son, did not write a book but founded a community, a church, upon the witness and ministry of twelve apostles. He sent this church the gift of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of love between Father and Son, the Spirit of the truth that God had revealed about himself and humanity by breaking into the history of human sinfulness.
This church, a hierarchical communion, continued through history, living among different peoples and cultures, filled with sinners, but always guided in the essentials of her life and teaching by the Holy Spirit. She called herself “Catholic” because her purpose was to preach a universal faith and a universal morality, encompassing all peoples and cultures. This claim often invited conflict with the ruling classes of many countries. About 1,800 years into her often stormy history, this church found herself as a very small group in a new country in Eastern North America that promised to respect all religions because the State would not be confessional; it would not try to play the role of a religion.
This church knew that it was far from socially acceptable in this new country. One of the reasons the country was established was to protest the king of England’s permitting the public celebration of the Catholic Mass on the soil of the British Empire in the newly conquered Catholic territories of Canada. He had betrayed his coronation oath to combat Catholicism, defined as “America’s greatest enemy,” and protect Protestantism, bringing the pure religion of the colonists into danger and giving them the moral right to revolt and reject his rule.
Nonetheless, many Catholics in the American colonies thought their life might be better in the new country than under a regime whose ruling class had penalized and persecuted them since the mid-16th century. They made this new country their own and served her loyally. The social history was often contentious, but the State basically kept its promise to protect all religions and not become a rival to them, a fake church. Until recent years.
There was always a quasi-religious element in the public creed of the country. It lived off the myth of human progress, which had little place for dependence on divine providence. It tended to exploit the religiosity of the ordinary people by using religious language to co-opt them into the purposes of the ruling class. Forms of anti-Catholicism were part of its social DNA. It had encouraged its citizens to think of themselves as the creators of world history and the managers of nature, so that no source of truth outside of themselves needed to be consulted to check their collective purposes and desires. But it had never explicitly taken upon itself the mantle of a religion and officially told its citizens what they must personally think or what “values” they must personalize in order to deserve to be part of the country. Until recent years.
In recent years, society has brought social and legislative approval to all types of sexual relationships that used to be considered “sinful.” Since the biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations, the church’s teaching on these issues is now evidence of intolerance for what the civil law upholds and even imposes. What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval. The “ruling class,” those who shape public opinion in politics, in education, in communications, in entertainment, is using the civil law to impose its own form of morality on everyone. We are told that, even in marriage itself, there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family. Nevertheless, those who do not conform to the official religion, we are warned, place their citizenship in danger.
When the recent case about religious objection to one provision of the Health Care Act was decided against the State religion, the Huffington Post (June 30, 2014) raised “concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen.” This is not the voice of the nativists who first fought against Catholic immigration in the 1830s. Nor is it the voice of those who burned convents and churches in Boston and Philadelphia a decade later. Neither is it the voice of the Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s and 1850s, nor of the Ku Klux Klan, which burned crosses before Catholic churches in the Midwest after the civil war. It is a voice more sophisticated than that of the American Protective Association, whose members promised never to vote for a Catholic for public office. This is, rather, the selfrighteous voice of some members of the American establishment today who regard themselves as “progressive” and “enlightened.”
The inevitable result is a crisis of belief for many Catholics. Throughout history, when Catholics and other believers in revealed religion have been forced to choose between being taught by God or instructed by politicians, professors, editors of major newspapers and entertainers, many have opted to go along with the powers that be. This reduces a great tension in their lives, although it also brings with it the worship of a false god. It takes no moral courage to conform to government and social pressure. It takes a deep faith to “swim against the tide,” as Pope Francis recently encouraged young people to do at last summer’s World Youth Day.
Swimming against the tide means limiting one’s access to positions of prestige and power in society. It means that those who choose to live by the Catholic faith will not be welcomed as political candidates to national office, will not sit on editorial boards of major newspapers, will not be at home on most university faculties, will not have successful careers as actors and entertainers. Nor will their children, who will also be suspect. Since all public institutions, no matter who owns or operates them, will be agents of the government and conform their activities to the demands of the official religion, the practice of medicine and law will become more difficult for faithful Catholics. It already means in some States that those who run businesses must conform their activities to the official religion or be fined, as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law.
A reader of the tale of two churches, an outside observer, might note that American civil law has done much to weaken and destroy what is the basic unit of every human society, the family. With the weakening of the internal restraints that healthy family life teaches, the State will need to impose more and more external restraints on everyone’s activities. An outside observer might also note that the official religion’s imposing whatever its proponents currently desire on all citizens and even on the world at large inevitably generates resentment. An outside observer might point out that class plays a large role in determining the tenets of the official State religion. “Same-sex marriage,” as a case in point, is not an issue for the poor or those on the margins of society.
How does the tale end? We don’t know. The actual situation is, of course, far more complex than a story plot, and there are many actors and characters, even among the ruling class, who do not want their beloved country to transform itself into a fake church. It would be wrong to lose hope, since there are so many good and faithful people.
Catholics do know, with the certainty of faith, that, when Christ returns in glory to judge the living and the dead, the church, in some recognizable shape or form that is both Catholic and Apostolic, will be there to meet him. There is no such divine guarantee for any country, culture or society of this or any age.
What are your thoughts, Father Joe? The blogosphere is in a terrible commotion, for and against the inclusion of a LGBT contingent in the parade. There is a lot of name-calling and other voices are remaining strangely silent.
FATHER JOE:
At a time when Catholics are dying for Christ, is this issue worth the attention it is getting?
But okay, I am not sure what to think or say but I will try.
As a preamble to my thoughts, it is too bad that many critics have lost the art of civil discourse. As with politics, when people disagree with each other these days they end up demonizing the other side. Our nation and Church are being ripped asunder by polemics and ad hominem attacks. It resolves nothing but makes fellow citizens into hardened enemies and threatens the Church with a virtual schism. I know what the Church teaches, but of course, as the good Pope tells us, this must be measured with charity.
Like many conservative voices, by temperament I would also like to strike out and keep Catholic events pure; but as I get older, I worry that a lack of tact could alienate souls that might yet be saved. There is a tension in balancing our witness to the truth with the forgiveness of sins. I can exhort, condemn, and correct— at least addressing sins if not sinners; but maybe time and space is needed for certain sinners to reflect, know mercy and find healing? I have serious misgivings about the decision in New York, but beyond this parade I have long had concerns about the association of St. Patrick’s Day with ribald antics and public drunkenness. It seems like a terribly poor manner to remember a great saint of the Church.
MICHAEL:
Time for healing? Am I hearing right? Have you been seduced by the “Church of Nice”? These dissenters are not interested in healing. They get angry when you call them sinners. They want acceptance and they want to change the Church. Some of them would like to see the Church disappear. We cannot compromise with them. There is no such thing as a partial Catholic. You are either in the boat or out. It is scandalous that a Cardinal of the Church should assert that homosexuality is no big deal. These [words deleted] are headed straight for hell and those who pamper them will risk going with them.
FATHER JOE:
Is the scenario you present entirely the case? When Catholic voices are demanding separation and asylum from such public events, are they not giving our enemies precisely what they want? A dead Church or a Church in hiding is still a win scenario for those who hate her and want the Church gone. Cardinal Dolan insists that we must find a new language and/or way of dealing with the advocates of homosexuality, divorce-and-remarried persons, users of contraception and even those who wrongly accent freedom over the sanctity of human life. When asked about how one might both affirm gays and still oppose so-called same-sex marriages, he honestly replied that he did not know yet. It seems to me that he is grasping for a new hermeneutic that would not betray our core principles. I cannot say for sure if it is possible. Personally, I doubt that accommodation will work and fear it will make matters worse. But he is still a successor of the apostles and must be given the respect as such. We may suggest that there is a disconnect between the new praxis and the enunciated principles; but it would be wrong to suggest any formal detraction from Catholic moral teaching. Like the Pope, the Cardinal is Catholic.
MICHAEL:
We need more courage from our shepherds. Priests should speak out!
FATHER JOE:
Priests are men of the Church. Years ago I was told that strong words of mine hurt and embarrassed one of our important shepherds. I am wounded by this memory. Priests, in particular, owe their bishops both RESPECT and obedience. The Church must speak with a unified voice. While seeking to avoid scandal, we should support our pastors and bishops, even when we fail to see things entirely their way. There has to be confidence that the Holy Spirit still guides our shepherds and protects the Church. This struggle to be faithful and respectful is often hard. The matter of pro-abortion politicians routinely taking Holy Communion have many times brought me to tears during prayer. I have long agonized over what I personally feel we should do (withhold the sacrament) over what we are directed to do by just authority. But as I wrote before, priests are men of the Church. They pledge respect and obedience, not only to God but to their bishops and their successors. They must do and say as they are told. The late Cardinal Hickey was very clear about this and he spoke about how we are extensions of the bishop’s ministry. While this can be taken too far, his assertion was theological sound. The laity have a certain latitude that ordained men do not. However, even they should not breech themselves from their shepherds. We must all be faithful to the teaching Church; conservatives (to use a political term) have generally been better at this than the more liberal or progressive voices. But once the lawful Magisterium is attacked, one is no better than the other.
I am sickened by the recent negativity focused upon Cardinal Dolan and how certain voices on the right harshly ridicule Pope Francis. We do not get to pick our Popes. And, as I tell my traditionalist friends, we immediately follow living Popes, not dead ones. Our support for Church leadership means respectful and civil dialogue, and never recourse to fearful muted criticism or caustic public ridicule
MICHAEL:
I think you are being naïve. Truth is truth and sin is sin. If church leaders compromise themselves and the saving message then the laity should call them out. You never used to mince words! You’re not the Father Joe I used to know.
FATHER JOE:
Did you ever know me? I am a faithful son of the Church. I took a promise to obey my bishop and his successors. I will be judged as to how I keep that pledge. As for you and the laity, be careful that you do not forget yourselves. You can no more tell Church leaders their business than can the liberal dissenters. Have you forgotten your place? You are not the Magisterium. You cannot defend Catholicism by discarding a major element of her hierarchical nature. This is a common mistake these days, from critics on the right and left. It damages the harmony and good order of the Church.
SEAMUS:
There may be a lot about this parade business to which we are not privy. It is easy to criticize when the weight of such decisions rests on the shoulders of others. The planners and the Archbishop may be in a situation where no decision will please everybody.
This parade is older than the United States and its continuation is in jeopardy. No one wants to be labeled as the person who killed it. The planners’ concession admits that the parade mimics the messiness of our world and society.
FATHER JOE:
Sinners and saints are mixed together. People and relationships are broken. Dreams are made and others are left unrealized. Is it enough to witness within this “messiness” or do we circle the wagons and refuse to associate with the world around us? Jesus went out to the poor, the oppressed, the sick and hurting.
SEAMUS:
He associated with tax-collectors and sinners, even prostitutes. While we must never forget our message and the truths of faith— might this be an opportunity to draw prodigals home?
MICHAEL:
Jesus also called the hypocritical Jewish leadership, “blind guides” and “dead men’s bones.” He refused to even speak with Herod. When Jesus related to the rabble it was always for purposes of bringing them to repentance and conversion. Where is that here? This “who am I to judge” nonsense from Pope Francis is like an Ebola epidemic spreading throughout the Church. How can we condone activity that will cast souls into hell? It is a lie to perpetrators and an enticement to others to join the procession, or in this case the parade, marching into the mouth of Satan.
FATHER JOE:
There will always be some who will exploit and reject our faith message. While we might argue about a prudential decision here; there is no evil intent from the organizers, Hibernians or the Archbishop. There is no denial of Church doctrine. The Church has been clear and consistent about her teachings in the public forum on human sexuality. I doubt people will forget this any time soon. The mechanisms of authority and truth will protect her from going in the direction of our confused Episcopalian brothers and sisters.
Our Lord saw many new faces following him after the multiplication of the bread and fish. Not all followed for the right reason, but he did not stop them. He lamented that some were only interested in the free food. When the real demands of his preaching were voiced, they abandoned him. It will not be the presence of sinners that will destroy the parade, not as long as we make it clear what is right and wrong. If we remain resolute, those unhappy about the overall Catholic message will eventually fall away on their own initiative.
MICHAEL:
No doubt some of those who abandoned Jesus were among the crowd that shouted, “Crucify him! Crucify him! We have no king but Caesar!”
FATHER JOE:
Yes, I suspect so, but that is the chance you take.
SEAMUS:
We are still battling with Caesar. As individuals and as a Church we may face further recrimination and abuse. But that seems to me to be part of the package Jesus gives to his followers.
FATHER JOE:
Returning to basics, what does it mean to be Irish? Some treat being Irish as if it automatically makes one a member of the Catholic club. But those days are over, both here at home and back in the ancient homeland itself. The nation that converted much of the world is now closing seminaries and being ministered to by priests from Nigeria. Scandal and secularism have destroyed in a decade or two what centuries-old British persecution was never able to accomplish.
I like parades, and I would not mind tripping up a leprechaun and making a wish upon his gold at the rainbow’s end, but as with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, my emphasis would always be upon Christ and his saints. There is nothing wrong with a pint of green beer. But it does bother me that these accidentals to St. Patrick’s Day should displace going to Mass, seeking God’s mercy and receiving (with the proper disposition) the Blessed Sacrament. St. Patrick was a slave who found his freedom and then came back to the Emerald Isle so that those in slavery to sin might know true freedom. Those who ignorantly worshipped trees would now come to the dead tree of the Cross and adore the one who laid down his life to redeem us. The Irish suffered the destruction of their monasteries and saw their priests humiliated, hunted and murdered; and yet, they still held on to the faith. They suffered starvation and dire poverty, coming to this nation for a new start. Signs advertised, “No Irish Wanted,” and yet they endured prejudice and worked hard to be good citizens and Christians. They had babies and Irish families were large and happy. It may be that traditions of family are among the greatest gifts they brought to this land. Remembering their past, they worked for a better tomorrow for their children. Folklore says that St. Patrick drove out the snakes from Ireland. May we never compromise ourselves with the serpent that began the woes of men in the primordial Garden.
MICHAEL:
Here in the States, many of the Irish have lost their sense of guilt over sin and have increasingly replaced the substance of faith with green beer and fancies about leprechauns, rainbows, pots of gold and wearing the green.
SEAMUS:
How closely have you both followed the news in New York? There have been a lot of “fighting words” over the decision by the organizers to allow a gay contingent under their own banner into the St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
MICHAEL:
This had long been resisted as incompatible with the Catholic faith.
FATHER JOE:
Actually, it was initially denied because of a conflict with public morals and decency. Today the winds of public opinion have evidently changed direction.
SEAMUS:
But it remains a celebration named after a saint. Is this not a kind of blasphemy? Does it mean that the faith is no longer regarded by the organizers as an intrinsic element of Irish identity?
MICHAEL:
Precisely!
FATHER JOE:
I am no mind-reader but I take the organizers for their word that the issue of faith is still important. It might simply be an overture of peace to Irish men and women who struggle with their gender identity and yet still want to celebrate their ethnic roots. At least I hope so. But admittedly, I am fearful that a goodwill gesture will be turned against us.
SEAMUS:
The parade committee stated that its “change of tone and expanded inclusiveness is a gesture of goodwill to the LGBT community in our continuing effort to keep the parade above politics.” The statement also reiterated that the event was “remaining loyal to Church teachings.”
MICHAEL:
Empty words— that is all they are.
FATHER JOE:
No, I think they mean what they say. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the incoming Grand Marshal, acknowledged that the parade committee “continues to have my confidence and support.” He apparently agrees that a measure to keep the peace and to preserve the city parade does not signal religious dissent on the part of the Hibernians or the parade organizers. However, it may not bode well for future negotiations with the more radical groups. A rash conciliation today could lead to a more severe divide tomorrow.
MICHAEL:
That last remark is quite an understatement.
SEAMUS:
Right now, one somewhat moderate gay group affiliated with the media that broadcasts the parade is involved: OUT@NBCUniversal. They will march under their own banner. The expectation is that they merely want inclusion to celebrate Irish ethnicity and heritage.
MICHAEL:
Don’t be fooled!
FATHER JOE:
Hopefully this will be given a greater weight than any promotion of same-sex attraction; however, I suspect much of the talk and media attention will focus on their homosexuality. It has the potential to kidnap the meaning of the parade.
SEAMUS:
I suppose so, if not this time around then possibly in years to follow.
FATHER JOE:
It is my hope that pages will be taken from the late Cardinal John O’Connor’s book. He was a strong defender of Church teaching on sexual morality and yet he was a compassionate man. He volunteered to clean bedpans at an AIDS hospice. He suffered with calm and composure having a gay activist spit the consecrated host into his face. He regularly had supper with his Jewish friend, Mayor Ed Koch, on the other side of the divide upon many issues. We can be strong and still work with one another. He also knew that some might never come to the truth unless strong stands are made. Cardinal O’Connor explained his opposition to allowing groups identified as gay from marching in the parade, “Irish Catholics have been persecuted for the sole reason that they have refused to compromise Church teaching. What others may call bigotry, Irish Catholics call principle.”
MICHAEL:
It was admitted that other gay groups would be permitted in the future. What if there should be dozens of gay applicants, each demanding its inclusion? What if participants should become increasingly brazen and vulgar? Will there be a forum to vet costumes, gestures, signs and float designs? Would such be judged as censorship? Will opposing groups get to march, carrying signs and banners for traditional marriage? Once a group that defines itself chiefly by its sexual orientation is permitted, then what about future scenarios where advocates for polygamy, bestiality and pederasty will want their place in the line up? Do I exaggerate?
FATHER JOE:
You do, indeed, paint a nightmare picture of escalating corruption of the parade and its basic meaning. I pray that some semblance of control can be maintained but what was once regarded as unthinkable is realized every day. It is sometimes joked, “Expect the worse and you will never be surprised or disappointed.”
SEAMUS:
I guess I would have less a problem with the concession if past lewdness and/or belligerence were not so often displayed by protesters with their explicit banners, gestures and decorated floats.
MICHAEL:
Evil is incapable of controlling itself.
FATHER JOE:
Such images can torment the conservative mind. Gays were always free to march as individuals, but not under banners that advertised their disorientation. The fear was this would politicize the event. Unfortunately, their exclusion did the very same thing.
MICHAEL:
I bet other more militant gay organizations will not be satisfied. They may even interpret the small concession to one group as an insult. Their angry agenda will not be appeased until the basic meaning of the parade is transformed beyond recognition. Like the Red Army parading its soldiers and missiles, they want to see their victorious legions marching in drag while shocking the crowds with public passion.
Proof for what I say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3XjSsqd1rM
FATHER JOE:
I recall a NOW rally on the Mall many years ago which included such visual and vocal expressions of foul gay exhibitionism that the liberal Washington Post press took offense and CSPAN refused to repeat the program, at least during the family hour. You are correct, we have seen poor displays of manners and it even embarrasses the more civil and family-minded homosexuals. When a gay activist several years ago spat the consecrated host back into Cardinal O’Connor’s face, several came to me with utter shame to be associated with such reprobates. They were members of COURAGE, started by my cousin, the late Fr. John Harvey. They embrace a life of celibate love, prayer and service. I wonder why they have no contingent in the parade, given that they abide by Catholic moral discipline?
MIKE:
Unfortunately these men and women have a very low profile compared to most. Stereotypes are realized and literally thrown into the faces of others: “Accept us or else!” When it comes to these militant gays, theirs is not a celebration of faith and heritage, because many of them hate the Church.
FATHER JOE:
I have read already that some of them think OUT@NBCUniversal is a rouse to keep them quiet and to restore the beer sponsors. I had never heard of it but it seems to be a small amalgamation of gays and straights that share basic values and want to keep the parade a family show.
MICHAEL:
Evil is evil. They are painted in the same sickening colors.
SEAMUS:
Still, I think it hardly compares at all with a number of other groups biting at the bit to participate, like the so-called Irish Queers.
FATHER JOE:
Even there name is wrong and offensive. None of them can begin to compare to a group of faithful sons of the Church like the Ancient Order of Hibernians. The AOH is “the oldest Catholic lay organization in America and is dedicated to Friendship, Unity, and Christian Charity.” The statement was released: “Organizers (no longer strictly AOH) have diligently worked to keep politics – of any kind – out of the parade in order to preserve it as a single and unified cultural event. Paradoxically, that ended up politicizing the parade.” While we can individually question the prudence of the current decision, I could certainly see how it fits into its appreciation of Christian charity. The problem will remain that others will view it as a matter of obligatory justice, at least as understood by a secular society.
SEAMUS:
Cardinal Dolan referenced the second theme by saying that he hoped the parade would be “a source of unity for all of us.” I pray that it will be so, but I fail to see how it will not be a strained unity.
MICHAEL:
How can we have unity with devils? Mortal sin breeches any viable communion between us.
FATHER JOE:
Timothy Cardinal Dolan has caught a lot of flak for his involvement and support of the organizers. But he knows too the hearts of the good men among the organizers and of the AOH. We live in a society where we must live together despite ever widening divergences of beliefs and moral practices. The dynamics to this are complicated. Do we retreat to the ghetto so as to be untainted by the world or do we throw ourselves into the mix as a living ingredient of the melting pot? The former would minimize our voice in the public forum, the latter might risk our deformation. The answers are not as easy as some make out.
Cardinal Dolan has responded to the controversy on his blog:
However, the most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the Parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it.
From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals. Homosexual actions are—as are any sexual relations outside of the lifelong, faithful, loving, lifegiving bond of a man and woman in marriage—a moral teaching grounded in the Bible, reflected in nature, and faithfully taught by the Church.
So, while actions are immoral, identity is not! In fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, people with same-sex attraction are God’s children, deserving dignity and respect, never to be treated with discrimination or injustice.
To the point: the committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture. I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”
MICHAEL:
I think the matter is black-and-white clear. But the “Church of Nice” is too far gone to see it. Liberality and pacifism rule the day. Those who would speak the truth cower to intimidation. If it is OUR parade then we should just tell the gays to stick to their own. Must they own two New York parades? The mayor can march for them and they can keep the beer and television rights, too. Must everything Catholic be spoiled?
SEAMUS:
The Cardinal states, “Neither my predecessors as Archbishop of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade… but have always appreciated the cooperation of parade organizers in keeping the parade close to its Catholic heritage.”
FATHER JOE:
Honestly, I must acknowledge that I find the expression “Catholic heritage” a tad weak. Many colleges advertise their Catholic “heritage” and “tradition” long after abandoning the Church and any emphasis upon sacraments and holiness. Is a Catholic heritage the most for which we can hope in this broken world? My hope would be, as ridiculous and unlikely as it might sound, that events like the St. Patrick’s Parade would be an overwhelming expression of Christian faith, winning converts and praising God as it proceeds under the massive skyscrapers.
MICHAEL:
Good luck on that one! It may remain a cultural event but the religious significance has been killed.
FATHER JOE:
I understand where you are coming from and I sympathize, but let me finish. Personally, I would like to see the nature of the parade restored to its religious roots. Our desire for inclusion and the benefits from commercial sponsorship (as with beer companies) has escalated the secularization of the celebration. I suspect that if it returned to its pious foundations, the parade would be much smaller and many dissenting groups would want no part of it. The problem we face would largely take care of itself.
What would I like to see? Like the processions of old, in my mind’s eye, I can imagine a brilliant monstrance carried down the thoroughfare with believers falling to their knees as it passes. Next we would witness relics of hundreds of saints carried in procession and finally a beautiful float with the Blessed Mother, adorned with flowers. Hymns and chants to Christ and Mary would fill the air. Altar servers in vesture would stretch the length of the parade. Priests and people, mindful of what they really celebrate, would enter St. Patrick’s for Mass and all the other churches would be filled as well. Large screens throughout the city would televise the procession and liturgy. Millions of people would honor the great patron saint and proclaim that Jesus is Lord.
MICHAEL:
And they say I am detached from reality. A secular world knows that New York is a godless city. Radical Islamists have attacked what they judge as the home of the Great Satan. I wish things were different, but yours is a silly dream, detached from any semblance of reality.
FATHER JOE:
I know it is not the city we know now, but how about tomorrow? I still believe in the God of miracles. He can heal bodies, change minds and convert hearts.
St. Patrick, do not forget your spiritual children!
A decade ago when I challenged giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, I was told that we needed these men and women for other important issues and should not burn our bridges. Of course, when push came to shove, these politicians largely abandoned the Church anyway: forcing us to shut-down adoption services because of homosexual inclusion, redefining marriage as something other than one man and one woman, requiring contraceptive and abortifacient coverage to healthcare plans, and tightening the screws on our tax exemption.
Democrats have frequently been demonized for promoting every type of liberality that spurns traditional morality. Republicans have been castigated as uncaring or insensitive to the poor. In truth, both parties are often opportunistic. Republicans liked Pope Benedict. Democrats liked Pope Francis. But both parties play with slogans and listen to lobbyists more than operating from incontrovertible convictions. Real Catholics should know that we belong to Christ more than to any political party. Real Catholics should place the teachings of the faith above the fickle fads and fashions of men. Today the attitude is if it is civilly recognized or law then it is morally okay. This is ridiculous. Catholics must be a sign of contradiction to the world, not an enabler for evil and not a deaf ear.
Are our Catholic people on the same page with the teaching Church? Here is where we find our crisis. Many are not. Many of the political enemies of the Church are self-professed Catholics. Back in 2004, 48 Catholic Democratic members of Congress signed a letter to Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, complaining that the bishops’ statements were counterproductive and “miring the Church in partisan politics.” In other words, the Church was told to shut its mouth! The religious liberty battle stems from this attitude. The Catholic card is played at election time, but once elected they are more likely to follow the money than scruples about fundamental human rights. This often leads to a re-prioritizing of what these rights actually are. As for the rest of us, we can be as Catholic as we want inside the church doors; but once outside the church building, we are expected to surrender to Caesar.
How can we play with any of them when they do not play fair? But what would happen to us if we collect our chips and cards and go home? Would we forfeit any say? Could matters be made worse?
It is argued that the Catholic Church has lost the contraception fight and now must move on. Similarly, I am today hearing the same said about other issues. Pope Francis is asked about homosexuals and he says, “Who am I to judge?” Critics rashly interpret this as a change in the Church’s stance and a leading gay magazine names the Pope as “Man of the Year.” A special synod is called on the family and revisionists suggest a coming change regarding the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried Catholics. But the Pope is still Catholic and I think the dissenters are in for a big surprise. It may be that we cannot judge the souls of individuals, but we can make moral distinctions between right and wrong. Those who commit serious sin are not in a proper disposition for the sacraments. The Pope is the servant of the Word, not its master. He cannot invalidate either divine positive law or natural law. Of course, what might happen is that many Catholics will become accustomed to an ever permeating silence— about birth control, about gay relationships, about invalid marriages, and God-forbid, even about the murder of unborn children. Here again with this last point, too many make too much of papal remarks about there being other moral concerns beyond abortion. The fact is the Church is facing conflict from every angle, including the martyrdom of Christians by ISIS swords.
An essential thrust to Vatican II was a dialogue with the world, not so that the Church might be converted to the world but that the world might be more receptive of Christ’s kingdom. Many of us feel that this remains an important mission for the Church. However, critics can rightly point at instances of impotency and weakness toward a hostile world that seems to be more successful than we are at winning hearts and minds. The Church faces a mocking atheistic secular modernity on one hand and a radical militant Islamic extremism on the other. The Church is not only caught in the middle but old friends have changed alliances.
Can the Church engage cultures that feign courtesy when we are on the same side of its agenda but otherwise find ourselves targeted for extinction? Fight against the death penalty for the guilty and we are applauded; but then we are commanded to lay down our arms in the battle against aborting children and euthanizing the sick and elderly. The bishops are praised for supporting healthcare but condemned for not wanting to provide free contraception and abortifacients. The Church was once rendered accolades for her orphanages and adoption services; but today is shut down for refusing adoptions to homosexuals and lesbians. The Islamic world once protected Christian minorities, and utilized them in government and in schools of higher learning; after all, they were the one minority that was so small it would never be a threat to the ruling powers. But today, fanatics will not rest until every drop of Christian blood is spilt or the men are converted. From the Islamic East to the Secular West, there is nowhere to run and no place to hide. It is for this reason that I fear silence. Peace today will only lead to worse wars tomorrow. Silence will be interpreted as assent, or worse still, retreat.
A person who is struggling with faith wrote the following:
I was raised “catholic” but now I am considering leaving “catholicism” along with belief in “god.” I honestly cannot come to believe in “god” anymore. I used to be such a fervent believer in him but I have come to the realization that I no longer believe in him. The more I read the “bible” and verses like the ones below the more I become disillusioned with Christianity.
This does not seem like the “word of god” to me— of a being who is supposed to be all knowing and perfect. Rather it is the work of an individual with a primitive way of thinking. Many times I tried to convince myself that the “god” of the Old Testament was different but sadly that is not the case since most Christians believe that “god” is eternally unchanging as is expected of a perfect ‘know it all’ being. I have many more problems with the “bible,” including inconsistencies with history and science. I also don’t like the fact that everything in the “bible” has to be watered down especially the negative portions. Why can’t I just read it for what it is, why does it have to be read metaphorically. When Jesus said that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves I understood the message loud and clear. So why are other portions, which are just so ridiculous, have to be read symbolically or metaphorically? I honestly cannot believe in “god” anymore. I tried but I just can’t bring myself to honestly and sincerely believe anymore. I don’t consider myself an evil person but the more “scripture” I read the less I believe.
Here is my response:
First, the Bible is not dictated word for word in a manner that invalidates the learning and life experiences of the human authors. The nature of the instruments (as human beings) has to be respected. Anything more controlling would be a form of possession, and that devilish business undermines human dignity. We are men and women, not pencils. The light of God’s truth shines through but as through the prism of the human condition. We see this ultimately with the incarnation and the one who is the Light of the World. Consequently, the coarseness and cruelty that upsets us in the Old Testament says more about mankind and sin than it does about God. The passion and death of Jesus is his confrontation with such a mindset. What was tolerated before is now challenged so that it might be healed and perfected.
Second, we must acknowledge that the Bible was written by many authors, exhibiting many styles, over a great deal of time and in many places. The oldest books may go back as far as the 16th and 12th century BC. The Scriptures also contain many forms of literature: histories, speeches, prophecies, legal codes, parable stories and mythology, poetry and hymns, etc. One must understand what one is reading if it is to be interpreted correctly. Jesus gave us a Church so that the truths of faith might be faithfully transmitted without dilution or corruption. While it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, this same Spirit in the Church preserves the truth. The Holy Spirit also grants us the gift of faith. The Bible is not a manual on how to live your life. The Bible is not a science book. It is a library of books that chronicles God’s activity in salvation history and our response. You should not make the Bible out to be something it is not. If you want an easy listing of moral certainties then pick up the universal catechism of the Church.
God as a perfect Spirit is unchanging and has within himself all perfections: knowledge, power, goodness, holiness, eternal, etc. But God must communicate with us in time. All we know is change. One day we are a child and the next we look into the mirror and see wrinkles and white hair. God enters the human family: the Word becomes Flesh. He suffers and dies for you and me. Jesus is the ultimate revelation of the Father. He lowers himself to our level so that we might better know and love him. While you like his words about love, you are ready to renounce Jesus as a divine Person and his real presence in the Eucharist. Why are you more willing to see mankind as a cosmic accident than as a providential creation with an eternal destiny? That is not much of a trade-off.
Old heresies often raise their ugly heads. Marcionism was a dualism insisting that the “harsh” and “bloodthirsty” deity of the Old Testament could not be the same as the “loving” Father of Jesus. This view was rightly condemned by the Church. Jesus is the long-promised Messiah and even our Lord says that “salvation comes through the Jews.”
I would like to say that man’s capacity to understand grows but I am often amazed at the depth of ignorance and error, even in the modern world. The deity of ISIS Islamic extremists is a throwback to the view of God as one of law over love, of forced conversions, and of espousing death to infidels. By contrast, the God of truth, justice and mercy is reflected in the courageous men and women who are tortured and beheaded for their Catholic faith and for the love of Jesus. While you reject God because your interpretation will allow no clash in models; the Christian martyrs witness to the truth with courage. They embrace in their agony what you throw away in your leisure.
Genesis 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, “Have intercourse with your brother’s wife, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid giving offspring to his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.
Often cited against the sin of masturbation and/or coitus interruptus, the situation again reflects an ancient code (pagan and Jewish) about raising a child up for one’s dead brother. Onan has no problem with enjoying the sexual act, but his selfishness will not allow a child to be conceived. If there is no progeny then no inheritance will have to be shared with his brother’s family. While Christians do not follow this legal code, and would object to such an understanding of the marriage bed, we can see in the story a divine negative verdict against those who would separate the conjugal act from its natural fertility. In any case, Onan is disobedient to what he perceives as his obligation under the law. Disobedience always invokes a reckoning. Given that he acts against life, his life is demanded of him. Remember that God is the author of life. We belong to him. If he should demand our life, it is his right.
Exodus 21:20-21
When someone strikes his male or female slave with a rod so that the slave dies under his hand, the act shall certainly be avenged.
If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
The ancient world kept slaves. These rules here were to make the masters of men accountable. While we disagree about such bondage, we can appreciate the yearning for justice. There is still slavery in certain parts of the world. The seed of freedom planted in the New Covenant would take a while to germinate and grow. Christians were urged to treat slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. Later slavery was tolerated until that time that debts were paid off or savages were civilized and given the true faith. Popes condemned slavery in the 1600’s and yet it would remain an institution in the United States until 1865. Dissent is not something new, as today the full humanity of the unborn is compromised. It became ever clearer that in Christ all are given grace and regarded the same— Jew or Gentile, free or slave, man or woman— all possess a precious dignity. Freedom is our birthright as children of God and everyone has natural rights. Here is one of the clearest instances of the organic development of doctrine.
Exodus 35:2
On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be holy to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death.
This is part of the Decalogue, although later Jews and Christians would not have any part of a death threat. Ancient peoples often attached the death penalty to matters they wanted obeyed— Canaanites did this, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and of course, the Romans, etc. The preference would be to imitate God because we want to be like him or because we love him. This particular law also reflects the human condition. Men need rest just as they require work. This law would prevent men from being forced to labor without a day of rest where they could worship God and find their leisure. Today we have forgotten this and poor people are sometimes forced to work seven days a week to put food on their tables and to care for their families. We live in a world which no longer either loves God or fears him.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.
We should not get caught up with the death penalties enacted by the ancient peoples. While we find it abhorrent, the emphasis is on the accompanying value, not the censure. When you do not have jails and are desperate to keep an organized society, societies typically enact harsh measures. This proposition here comes as part of a much longer list, each with a similar penalty: occult worship (6), dishonoring parents (9), adultery (10), incest (11 & 12), and bestiality (15). Here the prohibition is against the sin of homosexuality. Are you upset because the Scriptures and the Church teaches against homosexuality? Catholicism would say it also conflicts with the natural law. We must love our disoriented brothers and sisters; but we cannot give our approbation for immoral behavior. Those who are truly homosexual are called to lives of celibate love and service. How do you feel about the other sins listed? They have their advocates just as homosexuality did. During my lifetime there has been a major paradigm shift. That which was almost universally regarded as abhorrent and criminalized is now esteemed by our secular humanistic society as a basic right. The Church cannot dismiss objective truths so easily or because of the changing fads and fashions of the day. Doctrine can develop, but a reversal here would be in stark conflict with what came before. The accidentals of faith can sometimes change, the substance cannot.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not listen to them even though they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where they shall say to the elders of the city, “This son of ours is a stubborn and rebellious fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all his fellow citizens shall stone him to death. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear and be afraid.
Again, note that we are not under the many Hebraic laws but saved by faith and the Lord’s gift of grace. These dictums do not apply to Christians. The ancient society to which they applied no longer exists. While capital punishment clashes with the Church’s ethic for life, what was it that the people of old were seeking to foster? First, this passage is not in reference to a small child but to an adult (man). Second, his rebelliousness is not over minor issues. He is self-preoccupied to the extent of neglecting his parents and the community. He is abusive and dangerous. The stakes were high, life and death. It may be that the threat of ultimate punishment turned many of these men around. The law here was connected to a religious society. They did not make a distinction between secular or civil law and religious tenets.
Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, comes to dislike her, and accuses her of misconduct and slanders her by saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her I did not find evidence of her virginity,” the father and mother of the young woman shall take the evidence of her virginity and bring it to the elders at the city gate. There the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man in marriage, but he has come to dislike her, and now accuses her of misconduct, saying: ‘I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity.’ But here is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!” And they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the city. Then these city elders shall take the man and discipline him, and fine him one hundred silver shekels, which they shall give to the young woman’s father, because the man slandered a virgin in Israel. She shall remain his wife, and he may not divorce her as long as he lives. But if this charge is true, and evidence of the young woman’s virginity is not found, they shall bring the young woman to the entrance of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a shameful crime in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
Do you not remember the story of the woman caught in adultery and how Jesus challenged the angry crowd? He said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” They all walked away. Jesus came to bring mercy, even when the woman was guilty. He also preached against divorce, something that is affirmed here. You wrongly get caught up in the graphic elements. All these things must now be viewed in light of Christ. How is it then that these elements of ancient Judaism would cause you to dismiss your faith in Jesus Christ? Either you have not thought this through, or this whole comment with citations is a ploy from a non-believer to ridicule the faith.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
When two men are fighting and the wife of one intervenes to save her husband from the blows of his opponent, if she stretches out her hand and seizes the latter by his genitals, you shall chop off her hand; show no pity.
And how often do you suppose this actually happened? The religious gravity is not cruelty but upon the gift of fertility and respect for manhood. Destruction of a person’s faculty in the transmission of human life was regarded as a serious crime. It robbed a man of his posterity and remembrance. Remember, the early Jews had a poor understanding of an afterlife. They placed the emphasis upon children and property. This is one of many civil laws that were not unique to the people called by God. It is merely an ancient legal code. God calls us from where we are with all our ignorance or sophistication. Notice the law that follows it forbids carrying different weights in your traveling bag, so that men might not cheat each other when scales are used in purchases. The code that proceeded about marriage would mandate marriage within a family to carry on a brother’s name and linage. As with the Mosaic code on divorce, this would conflict with Christ’s teachings on the nature of marriage. Jesus would speak about their hardness of hearts. God’s passive will tolerates certain weaknesses and sins because of the freedom he gives us. We are not ants or robots. Not everything in the Old Testament reflects God’s direct will. The Bible is not a manual or rule book. It is a chronicle of salvation history. You have to read it as such and place the emphasis upon Christ and the teachings of his Church. God shows us his face and his will over time. While the deposit of faith is now fixed, it develops through our reflection and deepening understanding.
Isaiah 13:13-16
For this I will make the heavens tremble and the earth shall be shaken from its place, at the wrath of the LORD of hosts on the day of his burning anger. Like a hunted gazelle, or a flock that no one gathers, they shall turn each to their own people and flee each to their own land. Everyone who is taken shall be run through; and everyone who is caught shall fall by the sword. Their infants shall be dashed to pieces in their sight; their houses shall be plundered and their wives ravished.
This is part of a collection of oracles from various sources that focus upon foreign nations. While God’s people were indeed guilty of barbarism (we even see this in the psalms), the point here is divine retribution and judgment. The emphasis is that death will overtake everyone. There was also the appreciation that this existence is messy. There is violence and death awaiting us in a fallen world. Our life belongs to the Lord. Because of sin, we deserve to die. Jesus would fail to come as this kind of military Messiah. Rather, he brought mercy and not the sword. However, at the final consummation, he will be the true Pantocrator— the Lord of Judgment. Those who love the Lord need not fear. Those who disobey him have every right to be afraid. It does not mean that God directly desires child murder and rape.
Isaiah 40:8
“The grass withers, the flower wilts, but the word of our God stands forever.”
What do you find objectionable about this? It means that God’s Word does not forfeit its binding force. God keeps his promises. Did you write the wrong citation?
It is at this stage that you turn your disdain to the New Testament. Are you really a Christian? Were you ever?
Luke 14:26
“If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
This is an example of Hebraic hyperbole. It is an artifact of language. There is no exclamation point for emphasis. Jesus does not mean that we should literally hate our parents and family. That would be absurd. Jesus uses similar hyperbole when he says let the dead bury the dead or to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand. Jesus is actually saying that there is urgency to embracing the kingdom. Now is the appointed time. We should not delay or even allow familial relations to inhibit our acceptance of the Gospel. Jesus takes the family, our most prized human institution, and says that even that should not get in the way of following him. Note that Peter and Andrew left everything to follow Jesus. The boats would have to be used by other family members or friends for fishing. Jesus was making his apostles into fishers of men. It must also be said that in the early days of the Church, pagan families often opposed and tried to block the conversion of members. The words of our Lord would urge strength in the face to opposition and even betrayal.
Colossians 3:22-23
Slaves, obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others, knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance; be slaves of the Lord Christ.
Paul did not invent the institution of slavery but Christianity was altering it. Master and slave have the same dignity. This must be measured with verse three: “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all and in all.” Read God’s word in a contextual way. Often slaves had to work off just debts for their freedom. It was quite different from the tyranny of slavery in America. But as I said before, Paul’s words about our equality in Christ would eventually bring such subservience to an end. Here Paul is sharing his hierarchical view— one that still influences the constitution of Christ’s Church: wives subordinate to husbands (18), husbands love your wives (19), children obey your parents (20), and fathers do not provoke children (21). The mention of slavery falls within such a schema. We are all called to service. We are all servants or slaves of God. Even the Pope is called “the Servant of the Servants of God.” He is literally a slave for the Gospel and the Church. He lives not for himself, but for Christ and his people.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.
While it is doctrine that priests must be male, and I would cite this as apostolic evidence that such male leadership reflects the divine will, it probably refers to an immediate accidental about worship in the time of Paul. Not everything in Scripture and Tradition is unalterable doctrine. There are certain disciplines, even apostolic ones that can be abrogated. I think here about women’s dress or the mantilla veils that were once popular with women in church. Of course, today women are permitted to read the Old Testament and New Testament epistles in church. The citation here was principally concerning pagans or Gentiles who had recently converted. Women oracles and prophetesses (often possessed by demons) were a problem that Paul did not want to see translated to the churches. They would swoon, speak gibberish and cryptic remarks. Paul saw this as distracting from the truth of Christ. It may be that such women were seeking to wrestle authority away from the men who functioned as the legitimate shepherds.
You want a simplified or literal Bible and yet why should revelation be absolute baby talk? The things of God are far more complex than the inside of a car or computer. To reduce their repair manuals to what you would make the Bible would leave everything broken. It is past time to grow up. God’s Word is not broken, you are. We all are as sinners, me too. But in Jesus there is healing and salvation.
The defection from faith is an important issue and why for the past two years I invited a young FOCUS missionary named Katie to give her appeal in the parish. Along with other young adults, FOCUS ministers to our youth on college campuses. The statistics are frightful. Some 80% of our youth fall way while at college. These young adults put their careers and much about their personal lives on hold so that they might make a difference for others.
I think in truth the issues began long before our teens headed off for college or entered the work force. Minimally Catholic kids suddenly find that they do not have the watchful eyes of parents upon them. Quickly, they are influenced by peers who have no quarter in their lives for organized religion or traditional values. Liberal faculties deride Christianity and mock the sacraments as the domain of ignorance. Professor Paul Zachary Myers is the most blatant on this list, urging college students to steal consecrated hosts so that he can document on the Internet his desecration of the Eucharist. This is not representative of a civil debate about belief; rather, it is an emotional and militant attack upon people of faith.
College campuses will sometimes have Newman Centers and/or Catholic Student Associations. But many of the Catholic students fail to get involved. The attendance of Catholic students at Mass, even at Catholic schools is often pathetic. The best numbers I have heard are at places like St. Francis in Steubenville, Ohio and Ave Maria in Florida. I know one school where the chaplain schedules Masses at midnight so that students will have less competition for their time. One is more likely to see lewd photos on Facebook than posts about religious epiphanies and retreats or time before the Blessed Sacrament. Of course, many parents might not know because they are quickly blocked from seeing what is actually going on.
I am not saying that efforts to evangelize in college are in vain. Rather, I am suggesting that more could have been done (or done differently) earlier to minimize the damage later on. Catholic schools could also be more proactive with single-sex dorms, expectations about participation at Mass, and an uncompromised message about fidelity to the faith and the living out of the commandments. However, we have a problem— when honors are granted to those who seek to strip the Church of her religious liberty— when organizations that promote a homosexual agenda and lifestyle are given funds and recognition— when health service referrals include artificial contraception and abortions— and when crucifixes are removed from classroom walls so as not to offend— then we have become our own worst enemy.
I have been giving some thought to the pressing issue of keeping our young people Catholic and in the Church. Before I lay fault at the proper doorposts, it must be said that many of our parents are faithful in raising their children in the faith and insuring the opportunity for the sacraments. When their kids abandon the faith and Mass attendance, these good people are the first ones who feel guilty and wonder if there be more they could have done. But they did their duty and there comes a point where we have to let go and trust the Holy Spirit. Similarly, there are pastors and catechists who try program after program in hoping that the next one might turn matters around. They join their tears to those of heaven praying that prodigals might come home and that the children might be counted among the saints. Too many have forgotten God. Too many have turned their backs on the practice of their faith.
I would not want to condemn anyone, even parents who are themselves “fallen away” Catholics. God will be their judge. But of course, we can target many sources for the current problem. Whole generations of Catholics were poorly catechized. Poor text books and an air of dissent infected the Church. I recall tried-and-true books being thrown away because they represented the thinking of “the old pre-Vatican II Church.” And yet, this mentality betrayed a false dichotomy. There are no two churches. The accidentals may change but the deposit of faith is faithfully transmitted generation after generation in the one true Church instituted by Jesus Christ. The later publication of the universal catechism was an attempt to correct any false thinking about this issue. Our appreciation of doctrine can develop but the public revelation is fixed. What is objectively true will always be true. The false “spirit of Vatican II” has been exposed and in many circles has increasingly lost sway as a general segment returned to orthodoxy. This is cause for hope. Those resisting it have necessarily found themselves set adrift. The truths of faith were never denied by the Magisterium, but progressive theologians and their enthusiasts wrestled to place the whim of men over the wisdom of God.
There is no denying that the dominoes began to fall. The damage was done. Religious relativism, a false view of universal salvation, and the moral failure of churchmen to live out the faith compounded the situation. People fell away from the Church. The stakes did not seem as high as they once did. Meanwhile, the world was changing and Western Christian culture was collapsing. The process had begun prior to Vatican II. Indeed, the Enlightenment and later the French Revolution were signposts to what was fast approaching. Pope Pius IX promulgated his Syllabus of Errors. Pope Pius X confronted Modernism. When Vatican II arrived, many had hoped that there might be a dialogue with the modern world. Unfortunately, the world did not play fair and the council was unable to forestall the many negative agencies poised against her. A secular humanism was quickly taking hold. Man would be regarded as the measure of all things. The degree of hubris involved here would have been unthinkable in much of our earlier history. The “God is Dead” movement of the 1960’s and 70’s was thought by many as the final result of this movement. But there was more to come. Today many do not consider God as dead but rather, while rejecting the incarnation, declare that Man is God. The love of science, which in its place is a good thing, becomes a kind of idolatry where technology and the media are secular sacraments. There is the fantasy and/or pseudo-science that even death will one day succumb to man’s genius. Paralleling all this there has been the ascendance of a new paganism, expressed through heightened eroticism (homo- and heterosexual) and a general vulgarity in speech, music and behavior. Pleasure is sought as an ends to itself, not as an element of a greater good.
What does the baptized Catholic believe today? It is amazing how many false assumptions are made about the faith. While the Church teaches intelligent design and the complementarity between science, theology and philosophy; many view Catholicism through the prism of Protestant fundamentalism. Enthusiasts for evolution ridicule the Church for a literalism which she does not profess. Neither does Catholicism embrace a blind faith, which is rightly decried as mindless. While recognizing mystery, we espouse a faith seeking understanding and as a true companion to human reason. The Church argues for modesty and yet is not puritan in her aesthetic appreciation for the human body and the beauty of sexual love as a part of the divine plan. Nevertheless, some critics (even Catholics) mock the Church as if it is a Calvinist congregation or one knotted to Jansenism. The Church seeks to work with non-Catholics for a better world and for the remittance of human suffering; however, despite false allegations from traditionalists, lays hold to no ecumenism that would compromise her singular faith claims. It has also been a sad discovery that many Catholics suffer an impoverished understanding of the Trinity, the meaning of the incarnation, the value of the Mass, the mystery of the real presence in the Eucharist, the nature of the afterlife and the prayers for the dead, etc. Indeed, some believers deny the existence of hell despite the biblical testimony and the presence of evil that demands the full measure of divine justice. The occult has also infected believers, substituting magic for supernatural faith. It is ironic that atheism and the occult should simultaneously infect members of the Church. We need to do all we can to correct the errors of our times. There is no reincarnation. There is no parallel oriental bad force that counterbalances the good. We do no become angels after death as popularized in movies. The dead human body is a corpse. The human soul is a ghost. We are promised restitution in the resurrection of the dead. I cannot begin to say how many Catholics do not know the truth about these matters. Yes, even those in the pews need correction and a renewed formation. But, other than with preaching how do we do this? Many will not attend special classes or even online workshops. They fail to attend bible study or instruction classes. As for those not in the pews, is there any way left to bring them and their children home? How can the message of the Church compete with the many voices of the world?
I’m in a dilemma and need some guidance. I have a friend whom I’ve known practically my whole life. He is more of a brother to me than my actual brothers. He is gay, and I do accept that, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Anyway, we live in a state where same sex marriage is legal and he and his partner have decided to go to the court house to “make it legal.” He has asked me (as his best friend) to be his witness at the ceremony. If I support my friend, is it a sin? He really does not have anyone else in his life other than his partner and me. I do want to help him. Thank you.
FATHER JOE:
A sense of brotherhood is a special gift of friendship and this is commendable. But given that the Church does not recognize same-sex unions, it would be difficult for you to take an active part in the ceremony without compromising yourself. The very nature of a witness is to signify that a true marriage did indeed take place. Catholics would struggle with several points of the scenario you mention:
1. While a Catholic could witness to a heterosexual marriage between two non-Catholics (not married before) before a civil magistrate; it would be problematical if there is a prior bond or if one or both are Catholics. (Catholics must be married before a priest or deacon).
2. The Church would not recognize a same-sex marriage as valid. Does it give scandal if a Catholic witnesses something which the Church would judge as invalid and sinful?
I suspect it is point two that brings you to ask the question here. Is there a way to let your friend know that you love him even if you cannot publicly affirm his lifestyle and bond? Would he judge that as a personal renunciation? Could you explain that you have wrestled with the issue and feel that it would call into question certain moral values of your own?
There is probably no good answer. The best response might be to say, that as much as you would like to do so, you are unable to participate. Certainly you would not want to be hurtful. But evidently you are a practicing Catholic and this might give public scandal (giving recognition) and/or be interpreted as formal dissent from Church teaching.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 