Magisterium | Blogger Priest

German Summit, Shades of Martin Luther

Posted on February 20, 2020 by Father Joe

The recent manipulation of the Amazonian synod by German churchmen and now their own two-year summit hints at a coming religious revolution. It echoes the division and devastation enacted by Martin Luther. The disgruntled monk similarly sought alliances with dissenting religious leaders and earthly rulers. The princes of old are gone but the secular politics of the world are still every bit as opposed to the interests of the Catholic Church as they were before. While Catholicism has moved forward at the pace dictated by providence and the Holy Spirit; we are again a church plagued by scandals and not with one heresy but assaulted by all of them under the heading of modernism.

The German Summit Begins

The first assembly for the German summit was from January 30 to February 1, 2020. Pointing to an atmosphere of rebellion, Cardinal Reinhard Marx made it clear last year that this synod would continue despite objections from Pope Francis. Arguably more Protestant than Catholic, the Central Committee of German Catholics rebuked Pope Francis for a “lack of courage for real reforms” after the promulgation of his Post-Synodal Exhortation (To the People of God and to All Persons of Good Will the Church in the Amazon). Disappointed, but unwilling to give in on the reforms he has championed, Cardinal Marx of Münich asserted that the topics from the synod were “by no means off the table.”

If the subject matter is something that cannot be changed then what is the purpose of such discussions? Are we stirring the pot to ferment trouble or might we find answers that respect the truth, tradition and the needs of a changing world? Praxis must follow and safeguard doctrinal truth. When it takes the lead there is no assurance that it is in fidelity with what is right or good. Further, we must be honest as to the sources of formation. Are new ideas and stratagems emerging from revelation and the sources of doctrine or from outside the parameters of our constant faith? Religious relativism and indifference have now made space for defection to other “denominations” or even for the faithless slide into the new atheism. It seems to me that such was unavoidable given the relativism of truth to human whim and secular expediency.

Artificial Contraception

While all Christian churches condemned artificial contraception for 1,900 years, today Catholicism is viewed by her own congregants as backward and out-of-sync among liberal and conservative believers alike. Back in the 1960’s and the first days of the Vatican reforms and Humanae Vitae, the controversy on this issue should have awakened us to the core problem that would revisit us in other matters ready to explode like divorce, abortion and same-sex bonds.

Unfortunately, we did a poor job of communicating the Church’s rich Christian anthropology. The incarnation of Christ grants prominence to the dignity of human persons and the sanctity of life. Persons are not interchangeable. While animated by immortal souls, the body is not unimportant. We are not spirits operating extraneous or robotic bodies of flesh and blood. Unlike the angels we are not pure spirits. A body without a soul is a corpse. A soul without a body is a ghost. The integrated human person is properly a body and soul. This is how we live and relate to one another. The sacrament of marriage, along with its obligations and duties, focuses on this reality of human beings as corporeal persons. We are our bodies. While love cannot be contained to this world, marriage is a reality that ends at the door of death. We are promised that we will be like angels and yet with Christ’s resurrection, we are given a clue as to the glorification of the body that awaits us and our restoration, body and soul. Our understanding of identity embraces an intense appreciation of the human person as a corporeal-spiritual composite.

Gender is not an accidental but rather touches the central meaning of who and what we are. There is a complementarity of sexes, and while there is an equality in grace it is not mathematical. We are different. It is this difference that draws men and women together. How we are made is also how we relate and communicate. God has a plan for us and we are called to discern this plan. When it comes to married couples, there is a basic failure to appreciate that the marital act is more than the mechanics of the sex act but is a profound self-donation to the beloved that trusts the will of God and selflessly embraces the mystery and treasure of human life. Couples that would define their relationships by contraceptive acts, short-change their calling and the openness to life that is a hallmark of their vocation.

The problem of contraception is not a new question although technology has come a long way from the Egyptian use of crocodile dung. The Church saw it as an offense against the first command of Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. Families can be both responsible and open to the gift of life. They can cooperate with God instead of treating God as the enemy and his gift and blessing of children as a disease to be medicated away.

Divorce and Remarriage

While it has been very much in the news, especially given an apparent lack of clarity from Pope Francis, it must be proposed that the Catholic Church still accepts Christ for his word when he condemns divorce and exposes its link to adultery. Unless it is unlawful (the reason why there is an annulment process), marriage endures until the death of a spouse. The Catholic Church stands almost alone in this teaching as many of the Orthodox churches permit second penitential bonds and most Protestant churches will bless unions with divorcees or even with persons of the same sex. As a sacrament, we are supposed to see in marriage something of Christ’s relationship with his Church. Promises are made and Christ keeps his promises. We should pursue the same fidelity.

When it comes to marriage, few churchmen are ogres who want to hurt others. We realize that mistakes can be made. Many of the irregular unions also include children and a genuine desire to return to the sacraments. How do we work with them without destroying the basic meaning of the sacrament? Annulments, properly and honestly done, are part of the solution. Just as married priests in the early days of the Church were asked to embrace perfect continence, might this suggest an answer in certain situations? Can we be more proactive at the beginning of relationships so as to reduce the number of failed marriages? We certainly emphasize that even if couples cannot be invited forward to receive Holy Communion, they should still go to Mass and render God the worship due to him as believers. We are all sinners and all sinners should know that they will never be turned away from the church doors even if they should refrain from coming to the altar. The Mass is still the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. I suspect that there were many on the hill of Christ’s death who were similarly drawn to Jesus and his message but remained ill-disposed to fully benefit from the sacramental moment.

Same-Sex Unions and Homosexual Acts

Older Christians have experienced a reversal in how homosexuals are viewed and treated. The revulsion and prohibition against homosexuality once shared between the Church and state has been turned totally on its head. What was regarded as a perversion and as illegal is now reckoned by secular society as good, permissible and as something which must be actively promoted. Those who oppose homosexual sin are now reckoned as bigots. Indeed, laws are increasingly targeting believers who want to be tolerant or co-exist but cannot find it in themselves to celebrate what they understand as wrong and as grievous sin.

When it comes to the matter of same-sex relationships, is there a way to acknowledge love and friendship outside of the paradigm of matrimony? Might we recover an expanded appreciation of chaste brotherhood and sisterhood? Could it be that the prevalent eroticism of our times has poisoned this issue?

Abortion and the Sanctity of Life

The issue of abortion is particularly troublesome as the news parades Catholic politicians clapping and cheering the removal of any and all restrictions upon the termination of pregnancies. Literally children nine months in the womb and ready to be born are now vulnerable to what is more infanticide than abortion. The Church proclaims a Gospel of Life that is increasing politicized and made one issue among many. The Church would still proclaim that if one’s life is taken then for that person there are no more issues. We are not opposed to the genuine rights of women. We refuse to engage in the culture of death’s great deception. The Catholic Church defends the rights of everyone. We give voice to the voiceless. The Church speaks up for the rights of all women and some of those women are in the womb.

The issue of abortion can certainly be expanded for a better defense of life in scenarios of war and non-combatants, the elderly and euthanasia and the value or lack thereof of the death penalty in crime prevention, etc. However, this is not a pick-and-choose list. If a person is pro-abortion but opposed to capital punishment, he or she is not pro-life. We need to appreciate the non-commensurate value of human life wherever it exists.

Holy Orders as Restricted to Men

The question of holy orders is frequently considered within the apologetic of power and rights. It should rather be understood in the context of service and gift. The pattern that Jesus gave us is not one upon which we are free to diverge. He selected only men as his apostles, despite the fact that there were notable women who witnessed as prophets to the Gospel: his Mother Mary, the sisters of Lazarus (Martha and Mary), the Samaritan woman at the well, Mary Magdalene and others. The early councils like Nicea forbade the laying on of hands or ordination of women. The solemn proclamation of St. Pope John Paul II on the subject was definitive and infallible. Only some men and no women are called to be priests. However, the priesthood is a gift to all of us who participate at Mass and in the sacraments. We share our differing gifts for the good of the whole body. No one has a right to the priesthood. There is no egalitarian equivalence between men and women, although both are equally invited to faith, baptism and grace. One can prepare for priesthood but no one deserves it. It is purely a gift. If women cannot be priests or bishops then they are logically also prevented from membership in the third tier of holy orders, the diaconate. The evidence is that women in the New Testament who were called deaconesses were not ordained. They cared for female neophytes preparing for baptism. In certain cases, they were simply the wives of ordained deacons.

We can look for ways to include more women in decision-making, but holy orders will never be open to them. Not only does the tradition not support it, there is evidence of opposition to the prospect. The witness of the Anglicans is insignificant because apostolic succession was already compromised and they responded to the cries of modernity, not to the dictates of Scripture and Tradition.

Value in the Discipline of Priestly Celibacy

Further, the gift of priesthood or holy orders cries out for a single-hearted love. While a discipline, there is an integral relationship between the priesthood and the charism of celibacy. (This subject was of such importance that many married men in the apostolic and patristic age were required to pursue perfect continence when they were ordained.) Given that the Holy Father picked the name FRANCIS for his pontificate, I am not surprised that he has resisted calls to allow married men to serve as priests in the Amazon. Traditionally, celibacy is interpreted as an element of apostolic POVERTY and is appreciated in the context of Jesus’ encounter with the rich man who went away sad “because his possessions were many.”

The Council of Nicea (325 AD) forbade the laying on of hands or ordination of women.
The Council of Carthage (390) commanded celibacy or perfect continence for priests.
The First Lateran Council (1123) & the Second Lateran Council (1139) prohibited clerical marriage and cohabitation.

A Few Closing Thoughts

What is it exactly that the extended German summit hopes to achieve by its assessment of Catholic sexual morality and the dynamics of priestly life in regard to celibacy and the role of women? The American bishops following Pope John Paul II’s 1995 letter to women also promulgated a pastoral “reflection” on women (after much consultation where dissenters tried to hijack the discussion). The bishops attempted to make appeasement where the Holy Father inadvertently made enemies of certain progressives and radical feminists. However, in the end their effort was so watered down that it was of little lasting value, restricting itself to the unexplored themes of leadership, equality, and the diversity of gifts. The focus moved away from women in the Church to their general place in society. This is not to say that the document lacks utility for future discussions about the extension of praxis that respects the laws of nature and the revealed truths of God. When it comes to the new German effort, it appears that dissenting lay Catholic organizations are being given more a voice than those with a significant traditional faith footprint. Theologians can assist the Magisterium but they are not the Church’s teaching authority, themselves.

Filed under: Abortion, Adultery, Annulment, Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Commandments, Discipleship, Divorce, Family, Fornication, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pope, Pope Francis, Priestesses, Priests, Religion, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Women Priests | 1 Comment »

Denying Biden Communion

Posted on October 30, 2019 by Father Joe

The Breaking News Story

A lot has been reported about former Vice President Joe Biden being refused Holy Communion at St. Anthony Catholic Church in Florence, South Carolina on Sunday because of his permissive public stance toward the aborting of unborn children. Such liturgical matters are preferably left private between a person and his church. However, the priest fulfilled his moral duty precisely because Biden is a celebrity and such matters are immediately reported by the media. If he were an ordinary churchgoer in the parish it is likely the priest would not know his stance against human life and he would have received the sacrament; yes, even though it would have convicted him secretly and spiritually before Christ. Similarly, if his views were only known to his priest confessor, that priest would have been required to give him the Eucharist so as not to violate the seal of confession. But given this situation, as a politician he not only adds his votes among others but is an active enabler for the murder of human beings (a truth which he supposedly believes in “personally”). More monstrous than those who deny the humanity of the unborn are those like Biden that straddle the fence. On one hand he says that he agrees with Church teaching and personally opposes abortion; on the other he refuses to impose his moral views upon others and politically enables what he evidently understands to be the murder of human beings. Really, many of us have a hard time believing this? Like the famous video of so-called “Catholic” politicians in New York laughing and applauding legislation to allow nine-month pregnant women to abort their babies— any faith they say they have is feigned, soured, not real— you cannot serve two masters. You should not make yourself available to receive the bread of life while eagerly helping to feed children to demons.

He does not have to respond to reporters about the incident because his actions and kowtowing to Planned Parenthood speaks volumes. Rev. Robert Morey said afterwards, “Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden. Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching. As a priest, it is my responsibility to minister to those souls entrusted to my care, and I must do so even in the most difficult situations. I will keep Mr. Biden in my prayers.”

The priest denied him the sacrament because he knew that it would bring down God’s judgment upon him. The priest acted out of love, not enmity. He also knew that the occasion had been politicized. Every photo of Biden receiving Holy Communion falsely advertised that he was a good Catholic and that he and his views had the endorsement of the Church.

What Does the Church have to Say?

The following three citations have been heavily informative to my approach to the question of politicians and the reception of Holy Communion.

Canon 915 states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2002: “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

Cardinal Francis Arinze stated in 2004: “The norm of the church is clear, the church exists in the United States— there are bishops there, let them interpret it.” When asked if a priest should withhold communion to an “unambiguously pro-abortion” politician, he answered, “Yes.” “If the person should not receive communion, then he should not be given it.”

Priests under Pressure

Priests who are commanded by their Ordinaries never to withhold the sacrament are being told not to love as they should and to be silent in the face of the “holocaust” of innocents. Indeed, they are censured for making comparisons or allusions to other forms of mass murder or genocide. Policies, written and verbal, instruct parish priests that they must NEVER refer to one politician as pro-abortion and another as pro-life in homilies. They came speak generally about values but not to make matters personal. The impression is that we do not want to upset people. We do not want to appear as partisan. We do not want to see an attendance drop or loss in revenue. The subject is far deeper than what canon law stipulates. The passivity and silence of bishops on this matter of giving communion to pro-abortion politicians is systemic of the same malaise that condones silence and ineffective action against active homosexuals and pedophiles among the priests and bishops. When we should be champions of the truth; we hide behind lawyers and employ the verbiage of misdirection. We have made ourselves hypocrites when we should be sentinels for Christ. Called to a courageous faith and to take up crosses in following Jesus; too many are afraid and seek to play it safe. Priests are intimidated and threatened to be quiet and not to act. There are even rumors that despite the encouragement of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, policies are being assembled that will further restrict the actions of good priests but will also erase their proclamations on social media. Most dioceses stipulate that priests cannot give media interviews and must relay requests to chanceries. I suspect some of these fearful upper Church authorities were those that looked the other way when it came to the ravaging upheaval of rogue bishops like McCarrick, Bransfield and others. Claiming to respect the sanctity of life and then shutting down practical initiatives to save babies will not wash with God and will one day be condemned by those who judge the wrongs of history. There will be no hiding.

What is a True Disciple of Christ?

Biden has stated, “I’m a practicing Catholic. I practice my faith, but I’ve never let my religious beliefs, which I accept based on Church doctrine . . . impose . . . on other people.” This is essentially nonsensical. Although supported in the past, he has now denounced even the Hyde amendment. Catholic faith must always be lived out in obedience to the law of God and in a love of the Lord that is realized in charity. Christianity is not tolerant of immorality or sin. Freedom is not license but fidelity to the truth. Faithfulness is more than sitting oneself in a pew once a week; it is also taking the Christian kerygma or Good News in mission to the world around us. Pope John Paul II defined this message as the Gospel of Life. We are to convert the world, not to allow the world to convert us. We are to bring Christ’s light to the culture of death where we find ourselves. A believer is to be a person of strong character. His faith and values has importance in the lives of others; compromise is a failure to truly believe and definitely to love others. While the sanctity of life is constitutive of the Gospel, the issue of abortion is more than a sectarian issue; it is a human rights concern . . . none of us has the liberty to kill or to enable the termination of innocent human beings. How can we say AMEN to the hidden presence of Jesus in the Eucharist when we deny the hidden presence of the child in the womb made in his image?

Facing Ambiguity and Opposition

Those who possibly think differently on this matter have also been reported in the news.

Pope Francis, has attacked abortion in the harshest terms, equating efforts at abortion to mobs “hiring a hit man.” He is clearly defining it as murder. However, he has also intimated that communion should not be withheld from practicing Catholics based on what they do and do not believe. He wrote in 2013, “The Eucharist . . . is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.” What he gives, he takes away. The Holy Father’s efforts at ambiguity continue.

Cardinal Wuerl stated years ago in reference to Speaker Pelosi that he disagreed with holding back communion to manifestly pro-abortion politicians which he equated as “Communion wielded as a weapon.” “We never – the Church just didn’t use Communion this way. It wasn’t a part of the way we do things, and it wasn’t a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people. There’s a question about whether this canon [915] was ever intended to be used.” He stated: “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.” Back in 2009, Cardinal Wuerl said that he thought “we’ve been making progress” in conveying the pro-life message to the Democratic Party and that “There was just a setback with the distraction of Communion.” However, today the party’s pro-life representation in national government is now all but extinguished. This essentially continued the policy of Cardinal McCarrick in Washington. We may remember the infamous memo presented to the USCCB by Cardinal McCarrick which essentially falsified and reversed the message from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Cardinal Cupich bluntly dismisses the mandate of canon 915 in a rather defeatist manner, “I think it would be counterproductive to impose sanctions, simply because they don’t change anybody’s minds.”

Past USCCB advisor John Carr asserted that “it’s a big loss for our faith and for our church, either way, when the Eucharist becomes a source of division instead of unity. In my view, denying communion to people for their public stances is bad theology, bad pastoral practice and bad politics.”

Faithful America is an organization demanding that Fr. Morey’s bishop force him to apologize to Biden and immediately direct all other priests not to deny communion based on politics. “When hate groups purport to speak for Christianity, we act. We challenge the Catholic hierarchy in the United States to live up to the inspiring words of Pope Francis and we stick up for courageous Christian voices for fairness and freedom in every denomination.” (But is the killing of children just a political issue or is it a HUMAN RIGHTS issue?)

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Celebrities, Church, Commandments, Conscience, Eucharist, Faith, Formation, Holy Communion, Magisterium, Mass, Morality, News, Politics, Pope, Pope Francis, Priests, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sacraments, Salvation, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 3 Comments »

The Holy Father & His Sons

Posted on September 15, 2019 by Father Joe

156780875895068094 (13)

I posted some time back that I was distressed that the Holy Father would constantly bombard with insults men who earnestly struggled to be good and faithful priests. It was my hope that the pendulum was finally and decisively moving to the other side with the papal letter to priests on the 160th anniversary of the death of the Curé of Ars. Indeed, I even printed a copy for myself feeling that these encouraging words from the heart of Pope Francis were long overdue. But I guess old ways are hard to change.

Why would Pope Francis admit in public that he feels it is an honor to be attacked by Americans, when the most critical voices profess genuine loyalty to him and only beseech clarity and orthodoxy from the Holy See? Does he not understand that he has disparaged a church that has endured vile bigotry, fought back dissent, defended the sanctity of life even against her own, and is even now in a knock down fight with a modernity that has already vanquished much of Europe? Unmatched by any other entity except for maybe the U.S. government, the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Charities reaches out a helping hand in charity and proclaims a message of freedom— not asking for thanks— but deserving at the very least a certain level of recognition and respect. The Vatican would be in a shambles and there would be no “Peter’s Pence” if Americans did not shove money into the papal pockets as fast as the Pope took it out.

American Catholics love the Holy Father. While many of our brethren have fallen away, there are still millions of us who keep the faith even when it takes us to the cross. As for the priesthood, we have our share of sinners and saints, but most of our men daily lay down their lives for their flocks. They try to help people while not compromising the Gospel. This is not rigidity but an effort at humble service rooted in charity and in truth. We preach both repentance and the forgiveness of sins. If we pamper sin we might make friends and even fill a few more pews, but the lie would deny salvation to souls and make us accomplices in sin. This is not the form of accompaniment demanded by Christ.

My priest colleague and old friend, Msgr. Charles Pope has an ever widening media footprint and he has taken some negative feedback recently for saying that which needs to be said. Knowing him and his profound loyalty to Christ and to the holy pontiff, it must have been the most painful statement of his life.

The Holy Father stated:

“I would like to emphasize an attitude that I do not like, because it does not come from God: rigidity. Today it is fashionable, I do not know about here, but in other parts of the world it is fashionable, to find rigid people. Young, rigid priests, who want to save with rigidity, perhaps, I don’t know, but they take this attitude of rigidity and sometimes – excuse me – from the museum. They are afraid of everything, they are rigid. Be careful, and know that under any rigidity there are serious problems.”

Monsignor Charles Pope wrote on social media:

“Santo Padre, I’m not feeling the love here, I don’t feel accompanied by you. Make room in your heart for me and others like me. I am not a young priest, but I know you don’t like my type of priesthood. Further I am an American and this mere fact seems to also make me troublesome in your eyes. I am not afraid of everything as you state, but I do have concerns for the ambiguity of some of your teachings and severity of some of your actions. Yet when we, your less favored sons, ask you questions, you will not answer or clarify. In all this I am still your son and share the priesthood of Jesus with you. I await the solicitude and gentle care from you that you say I, and others like me, lack. Meanwhile I must honestly and painfully say that I am wearied from being scorned and demonized by you. Respectfully, Carlo.”

If there should be any backlash for such courageous honesty, I hope it will be measured by justice and respect for the truth. The saints are weeping.

A Priest Trying to Understand the Pope

Pope Urges an End to Insults… YES!

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Magisterium, Pope, Pope Francis, Priests, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Pope Urges an End to Insults… YES!

Posted on June 9, 2019 by Father Joe

156780875895068094 (14)

We read: “The pope said that ‘nowadays it is fashionable to hurl adjectives’ in what’s tantamount to ‘a culture of insults.’ He recommended responding ‘to malice with goodness.'”

Pope laments current “culture of insults,” church propaganda

It is public knowledge that the Holy Father has hurled many insults, especially at many whom are largely regarded as faithful priests and even bishops. If such is the case, then why is he surprised if some should return them or even try to laugh through their tears with humor? The humility of Pope Benedict was rooted in his intellectual life and prayer. Yet the world hated this gentle and ascetic man (careful with his words) as much as it seems to love the provocative and outgoing Pope Francis, who like President Trump, says what he wants without a filter.

My intention is not to foster scandal. This is merely a cry in the wilderness. The Pope’s words (unfortunately) speak for themselves:

The CLERGY have been called “vain butterflies,” “smarmy idolaters,” “priest-tycoons,” “animals,” “new Pharisees,” and “confessional torturers!”
The CURIA has been labeled “the leprosy of the papacy.”
SEMINARIANS, especially the traditionally-minded have been targeted as “potential little monsters.”
NUNS who preferred the older disciplines and vestiture were criticized as “uninspiring old maids.”
TRADITIONALISTS were censured as “museum mummies.”
While the Holy Father has made powerful efforts to reach out to those who feel estranged from the Church and those in irregular unions, he is less friendly toward REGULAR CHURCH-GOERS in the pews. He calls them “pickled pepper-faced Christians,” “closed, sad, trapped Christians,” “defeated Christians,” “liquid Christians,” “creed-reciting, parrot Christians,” and “watered-down faith, weak-hoped Christians.”
JOURNALISTS do not escape but are insulted as “fomenters of coprophagia!” If Trump has his fake news, the Pope has literally referred to his dogs eating feces.

So I agree with the Pope, enough with the insults… all around.

In fear and trembling… pledging obedience… a faithful but derided son.

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Magisterium, Pope, Priests | 1 Comment »

Abuse Scandal & “Vos Estis Lux Mundi”

Posted on May 9, 2019 by Father Joe

Having read this article in THE CATHOLIC STANDARD and the document on the Vatican website, I am hopeful but unconvinced that this will prove sufficient. Can Church leaders still be trusted to police themselves? Will this satisfy demands for transparency? While not mentioned at all, did not the crisis with Cardinal McCarrick clarify that the roots of the scandal were not in pedophilia but rather an active homosexuality? Can the problem we face be resolved without first a purification of the Church, next a rededication to celibate love and most importantly a renewed call to holiness?

We are Called to Live & Minister in Fidelity to Christ

The Holy Father is quite right that we are all called “to give concrete witness of faith in Christ in our lives and, in particular, in our relationship with others.” No one is excused from the demands of the moral life. Indeed, our fidelity to our calling to holiness finds its demarcations within the parameters of our vocations of service, particularly in the mutual life of support and affection shared by spouses in marriage and by the cleric in his surrender to a celibate love that finds its direct source in God. The motu propio rightly speaks of this truth but it must be asked, does it ever really target by name the key issue behind the current crisis about priestly misbehavior and abuse?

Yes, sexual abuse is obviously an offense to God and it certainly causes “physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm to the community of the faithful.” I would also add, that as a sin, it also brings ruination to the soul and character of the perpetrator. Efforts to prevent further abuse will certainly require an openness to the grace of the Holy Spirit; however, it will also require sufficient “concrete actions.” Measures already taken proved their value even though they were not fully effective, given their application to the laity and to accused priests while leaving the bishops largely immune or detached from the reach of child protection initiatives.

The Shepherds of the Church are Entrusted to Safeguard the Flock

We have seen a peculiar development in the response to the abuse of children in the Church. Initial initiatives focused on the laity (parish staff and teachers) with the clergy almost entirely outside the purview of child protection programs. Then as more and more priests were charged and judged guilty of abusing minors, religious and parish priests were added to the mix. Recent efforts at deflection failed for the bishops when attorneys targeted them by name as either abusers (themselves) or as protecting, enabling or hiding priests who harmed children. Can we now trust them to do what is right? The papal initiative continues our efforts to deal with dangerous priests but also places bishops on the radar. While we are all called to a moral life, the practical focus here is specific to the clergy, given the current scandal. The scope of the misbehavior begins with violations of the sixth commandment (You shall not commit adultery).

Yes, the bishops have a singular role to play as the successors of the apostles possessing the fullness of priestly authority. They must edify their flocks “in truth and holiness,” not as pampered princes but as humble servants who live out “the evangelical counsels” in obedience to the Lord. They must keep trust with God’s people, placing the needs of the faithful centermost in all they say and do. Will these new universal procedures be sufficient in combating ecclesial betrayal? Frankly, the document looks to the future while many of us are still concerned about the past and present.

Yes, there should be “mutual listening” and openness “to the contributions of those who care deeply about this process of conversion.” But where does this place agnostic clinicians that continue to work for the Church who once counseled the return of abusers to assignments and later couched the scandal as one of pedophilia while it was in actuality one of homosexual pederasty? How can we trust those who treat priests when an unspecified number of their centers are suspected as hotbeds for homosexuality and dissent? How does a Church express sorrow and reach out to victims so that they might find real healing and peace when the leadership apparently places an inordinate emphasis upon hiring savvy lawyers so as to avoid liability or fault? What becomes of truth when both shepherds and attorneys employ a plethora of words that baffle the mind and fail to answer pertinent questions? Where is true transparency when the critical and revelatory letters of a high profile prelate like Archbishop Viganò can be dismissed, even by the Pope, himself?

The Strengths & Weaknesses of the Papal Intervention

What are the positive elements of this document that build on past efforts to stem the abuse of minors by clergy?

Episcopal cover-ups are now deemed as crimes in the Church.
Dioceses cannot be indifferent and must render material and physical help to victims.
There is finally a system to report the malfeasance of bishops.

What might be the negative or problematical points in this document?

Homosexuality is not named as having any part in the problem and scandal.
We must still trust bishops to investigate their fellow bishops.
No penal actions or disciplines are dictated.
The new policies are not retroactive to older cases.
Nothing dictates transparency, either in the investigations or the subsequent punishments.

Given the nature of the crisis, the document singles out clerics and religious. This is as it should be but many remain deeply worried about priests who are wrongly accused. The document speaks of a presumption of innocence; but in truth, what constitutes “credible” accusations has never been sufficiently or universally defined. Allegations going back decades and lacking forensic evidence, still result in suspensions. The stigma from charges will always remain and frequently Church authorities feel that these men cannot be reassigned. Those who are dead cannot defend themselves but they can have their good names and reputations destroyed. The methodology we follow would require that even if allegations should later be proven untrue, we must approach each case as if a wrong did occur. Many bishops did not seem overly concerned about possible injustice, that is until attorneys and victims turned their sights upon them.

While it is lamentable that priests known as abusers were shuffled around; it is just as sad when possibly innocent priests are not convicted of crimes but are still convicted by the court of public opinion (largely uninformed) and a bias media. They are frequently left out in the cold and attempts to defend them, especially from conservative voices, are often rewarded with charges of intolerance and homophobia. It may simply be a matter of cynical over-reaching, but some have noticed that the prosecution of cases of priestly misbehavior are not handled the same by different bishops and in varying locations. If the new document brings uniformity then that may be a definite improvement, providing that justice is real. Too often it seemed that certain priests, even where a preponderance of the circumstantial evidence pointed to guilt, got off easier than others. We have seen this in a number of cases where men charged with homosexual indiscretions or misbehavior were either defended or quietly returned to ministry. While we must not be uncharitable or fall prey to calumny, the question does logically arise, were they being specially protected by friends in high places (perhaps with similar inclinations)?

How Should We Punish Bad Bishops & Priests?

Note here that “no penal actions or disciplines are dictated.” This is a serious matter that should become part of the global discussion. What do we do with bishops and priests who are not incarcerated? Priests suspended from ministry and/or lacized often have to find new employment. The Church loses track of them. If they are registered sex-offenders in the US then the government might track a few of them. Given their tarnished reputations, it may even be hard for them to find a place to live. Some places post signs and various people have taken it upon themselves to warn neighbors and to alert nearby schools. God forbid that the man is actually innocent; however, if he is a predator, many of these men are serial offenders. They seem unable to stop themselves. The homosexuals among them, and this is the majority, seem drawn to multiple partners. Many of these priests, themselves, suffered trauma in experiencing a homosexual encounter when they were teens. Yes, the abuser was himself abused. All the while our society has sought to make the disorder of homosexuality normative. That is why the media often falls over itself in attacking the abuse scandal in the Church while desperately trying to sever it from homosexuality. Can we keep the priest abusers in Church run facilities indefinitely? Must they accept chemical castration? Can we mandate that they live in special monastic centers far from populated areas? What do we do with a priest when all he knows is being a priest, even if a bad, sick or criminal one? The Church has been condemned for keeping these men in Church facilities. The Church has also been criticized for letting these men go and not supervising them. We need to do something but I am unsure that we can do anything that will please everyone.

Abuse of Priests as Spiritual Incest

Although the attitude of certain shepherds makes it hard to believe, we are traditionally taught that the relationship of a bishop to his priests should be that of a father to his son. If this is the case, then we have a problem in the Church that is more complicated than a few sick bishops having sexual relationship with priests. Fathers nurture and care for their children. They treat them with justice and compassion. They hear them out. They may even discipline them when such is necessary. We cannot excuse past abuse or enable clergy to hurt others. But the question must be asked, would a father disown his son?

Clarifying the delict, we read that it first applies to “forcing someone, by violence or threat or through abuse of authority, to perform or submit to sexual acts.” I recall years ago a bishop in Hawaii who was accused of sexually abusing some of his priests. Along these lines, the situation with McCarrick (former cardinal in Washington) is an egregious tale of deception, complicity and perversity. However, it would still be a scandal even if these acts with priests or other men were consensual. Are we not limiting ourselves to that which might be prosecuted legally? Further, I have a hard time imagining an “innocent” priest (as a grown man) submitting himself as a sexual pawn to his bishop so as to avoid punishment. I would either walk away or more likely give him a quick punch to the face. Many of the stories imply that such misbehavior was to incur favor and plum assignments, maybe even elevation to the episcopacy. These are not abused innocent men. These are homosexuals victimizing their own fellow homosexuals. It would seem to me, after proper investigation; that a number of these so-called adult priestly victims would also have to be dismissed from the clerical state.

Minors, Vulnerable Persons & Trust

Point number two is where most of the gravity in the current scandal can be found. It is also a matter that will need further development. For instance, what is a minor? Currently in the US it is regarded as someone under 18. Many other places in the world lower the age of majority to 16 or even 14 years of age. Again, it seems that we are giving an emphasis to legal liability. Is this not somewhat capricious? Children and young people should not be abused. That should be a given. But what is deflected is that the priest or bishop is not supposed to have sexual relations with anyone, of any age, and of either gender! If priests remain true to their promises, then youth and other vulnerable persons are safe. The issue here is one of morality and holiness.

Practically speaking, there has been more than a little confusion as to what constitutes a vulnerable person. During a conference with archdiocesan officials a few years ago at St. Jerome’s hall in Hyattsville, I asked a recently hired official if the protection guidelines included the intellectually challenged and the elderly. He said no, just minors. I argued with him. Now it seems he was indeed wrong. Left unsaid is how does one protect both the vulnerable persons from harm and the clergymen from false charges? We are told not to be alone with children and yet many parishes still have reconciliation rooms with closed solid doors. Would it not be better to insist upon the traditional confessional with a wall and screen? Are we consistent in not having clergy alone with people suffering intellectual challenges? When a priest does sick calls, is he alone or accompanied by others? There was a recent case where Fr. Gerold Langsch was charged with groping a woman in hospice care after he was summoned to give the last rites. Are our priests never to be trusted? What does this communicate about the clergy? Our Lord sending his disciples out “two by two” is making ever more sense.

All Pornography Poisons the Soul

Certainly I would agree that it is grievously wrong for the clergy to possess child pornography. However, it is also sinful and inexcusable for priests to collect adult and/or gay pornography. Where are the programs to assist priests who are addicted to pornography and self-pollution? Even if the filth is not of the type that will land the priest in jail, it is still sufficient to posit him in hell. How can a priest authentically care about persons while he looks upon the bodies of others as commodities to satisfy his own lusts? Pornography is literally a form of virtual prostitution— others are devalued as persons by the very one who should be praying for them, to raise their dignity, and to save their souls. The priest who would exploit others has forfeited within himself the grace that others need to be spiritually enriched.

Giving a Name to the Sin that Fuels the Scandal

The sixth commandment (against adultery) is interpreted by the Church as pertaining to all sorts of sexual misbehaviors. Many feel that the document would have been stronger with an elaboration of the crimes or sins that made this document necessary. As it stands, there is arguably a level of ambiguity. The universal catechism gives us a list of sins that violate the sixth commandment and offend against chastity: (1) lust, (2) masturbation, (3) fornication, (4) pornography, (5) prostitution, (6) rape, and (7) homosexuality. While today we must deal with a whole list of deviant sexual practices, like pedophilia and bestiality, it is apparently presumed in the catechism that all but homosexuality would be universally condemned and hopefully quite rare. The last sin listed here is very important to this discussion. The universal catechism states that when it comes to homosexuals, “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” No reference is made to this sin by name in the papal document. Deliberate or not, is this a fatal oversight? The popular characterization of pedophilia is grossly false. Pedophilia is a psychiatric malady in which an adult has a primary or exclusive sexual disorientation toward prepubescent children. By contrast, well over 80 percent of the abuse cases with priests in the United States involved older or teenaged boys. Nevertheless, this misdiagnosis of pedophilia is what has allowed the US bishops’ conference to wrongly conclude that homosexual priests are no more likely than heterosexual ones to enter into abusive behavior. How many cases of active homosexual clergy (as with McCarrick) are known to the bishops? How many have similarly been protected and promoted when they should have been severely disciplined?

Just at a time when we are called to embrace the truth, the reality of the situation is often carefully worded by churchmen in a way that seems inexact if not explicitly deceptive. Further, many people are themselves so morally bankrupt that they cannot distinguish what is right or wrong, particularly when it comes to human sexuality. They are formed more by our secular culture than by the Christian kerygma. It is in this light that some may complain that these new measures should have better spelled out what sins violate the sixth commandment. While it would probably be widely unpopular and condemned as intolerant, should not some mention have been made about homosexuality as at the root of the current problem? The failure to do so will make it easy for the harshest critics to say that nothing has changed… that the Lavender Mafia is still pulling the strings and protecting its own. It was not long after Pope Benedict XV asserted that homosexual men should not be ordained as priests that he called it quits. He apparently had neither the health nor the strength to fight this powerful enemy from within… this proverbial “smoke of Satan.” Those who would dissent on homosexulaity would likely be the first to liberalize teachings about fornication and adultery.

We need a priesthood that is unassailable in its individual membership and that speaks with one voice as the sentinel of Christ. Priests must be witnesses to the whole world of a calling to be living signs of contradiction to our times. Ironically, the world attacks the priesthood for the very corruption with which it has infested the priestly soul. The scandal is not that we have faithfully stood up against the world but that too many have succumbed.

The current crisis in the Catholic Church is one of homosexuality; no matter how many bishops and their so-called experts would say otherwise. It would NOT be “unjust discrimination” to remove them (any who have experienced even one act of homosexual intimacy) from the seminaries and from the active priesthood. This should be a given if we want to insure the high moral character of the priesthood and the reputation of the Church. Homosexuals are loved by God and his Church; but they must remain chaste. They can serve the Lord in many ways, albeit outside of holy orders. No one deserves to be a priest or bishop. It is a gift from God and his holy Church. No women are called and few men. No one can demand ordination as a matter of justice. I am fearful that without this purge, the scandals and problems we face will remain to haunt us for many years to come.

Can We Find It in Ourselves to Trust the Hierarchy?

Not new is the level of care that many local churches already offer to those who come forward as victimized. God stewards have welcomed them to come forward and have listened to their sad stories. They were treated with respect and their dignity was acknowledged as children of God. Many good bishops have offered both spiritual and therapeutic assistance. However, we as a Church are ashamed that charges of abuse were sometimes not taken seriously and clergy were allowed to continue in preying upon innocence. Those with any moral conscience are deeply troubled by allegations that officials threatened victims to be silent and that hush money was paid. The institution of the Church failed a number of her own. All the while, Mother Church with Mary’s immaculate heart weeped for her children. I suspect there are still tears pouring from heaven.

The provisions call for the submission of reports through the institution of a specific ecclesiastical office and to Ordinaries. Reports could also be sent directly to the Holy See. The Metropolitans would regularly take the initiative in commencing investigations of higher clerics. (This is much as Cardinal Wuerl had suggested some months back; has Pope Francis put his name to the cardinal’s plan?) I have not yet read any other critiques but I can well imagine that a number will complain. Are we again being asked to trust that the bishops of the Church can police themselves? We read that the proposed procedures will insure “confidentiality” (to protect the applicant) and yet no one will be obliged to secrecy. It will be interesting to see how this will work.

As an alternative, many of us urged the further establishment or expansion of independent lay review boards. Canonical changes would be required so as to give these boards some teeth against slippery and guilty higher level clerics. At present, given this document, it seems unlikely this will happen. Did the cries of many fall upon deaf ears? It is indeed possible that our shepherds know better than many of us as to what must be done. The problem is that earlier assurances proved shortsighted and McCarrick (a principal spokesman for the American bishops) was revealed as part of the problem, not the solution. As I first said, I hope this new stratagem will bear fruit. Be that as it may, it is hard to shake off a nagging pessimism that this effort of the Holy See will satisfy the level of transparency for which critics and victims are clamoring. We pray that this is not more of the same. Have we been down this road before? Are we trying to fix with a bandaid what needs surgical intervention? Are we seeking to resolve a major challenge to the Church’s life and authority with a gentle tweaking of policies when what she really needs is a full-blown reformation?

A Few Links to the News About This Blog Story

CNA – Analysis: Is Pope Francis’ new abuse plan the answer Catholics are looking for?

Vatican News – New norms for the whole Church against those who abuse or cover up

Catholic Telegraph – Q & A Regarding Pope Francis’ Motu Propio VOS ESTIS LUX MUNDI

Intermountain Catholic – US Bishops’ Conference Statement on Motu Proprio

America – Pope Francis’ new sex abuse rules are a revolution for the Catholic Church

CRUX – Reaction to Pope’s abuse letter: ‘Nice words, but it’s time for action’

NC Register – Pope Francis Signs Motu Proprio to Prevent and Denounce Abuses in the Catholic Church

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Commandments, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Morality, Pope, Pope Francis, Priests, Sexuality, Sin | 2 Comments »

Your Mission is Not Conversion?

Posted on April 2, 2019 by Father Joe

Matthew 28:18-20 – “Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.'”

The Holy Father praised the moderate Islam that is being fostered in Morocco? And yet, converts to Christianity are not recognized and they must often worship in secret. Conversion from Islam to Christianity is illegal. Missionary outreach or evangelism is punishable with three years in prison. Jesus commanded us to be fishers of men… so how can the Pope say that making converts is not our mission? Catholics and other Christians are suffering for the faith… is it all for nothing?

I hear the story is getting a lot of press worldwide, not just among Muslims but among Buddhists and Hindus. The link here is to a Jerusalem newspaper. It has also made big headlines in the Hindu newspapers of India. Evidently this is being thrown into the faces of Christians who have sought to make converts there. There will be a lot of ripples from this.

It may be that I am too thick to understand the Holy Father. Certainly we should strive to live in peace with others. My posture will always be one of respect and obedience… even if I am somewhat befuddled. I may also be somewhat over-sensitive… particularly when it comes to the situation of Christians persecuted for their faith. The first glimmerings of my call to priesthood came with an admiration of those Catholics and clergy who suffered for their faith… oppressed by non-Christian religions and/or by Communism. My thoughts also turn to China where many worry about the underground church and pray that we have not betrayed them.

Filed under: Catechesis, Catholic, Conscience, Discipleship, Ecumenism, Evangelization, Faith, Formation, Islam, Magisterium, Politics, Pope, Pope Francis, Religious Liberty, Salvation | 1 Comment »

A Scandal that Calls for a New Reformation

Posted on August 24, 2018 by Father Joe

153508226949038595

“Christ himself, the model of priests, taught first by the example of his deeds and then by his words: Jesus began to do and then to teach. Likewise, a priest who neglects his own sanctification can never be the salt of the earth; what is corrupt and contaminated is utterly incapable of preserving from corruption; where sanctity is lacking, there corruption will inevitably find its way.”

– St. Pius X

We are taught as Catholics that the Church is holy because Christ is holy. This is what gives truth value to the second mark of the Church mentioned every time we recite the Creed at Sunday Mass. The Church is holy and it is by means of the teachings of faith and the sacraments that we can be made holy by grace. This is what we believe and yet has there ever been a time when it was so very hard to believe? The Church is also composed of sinners; indeed, we are all sinners needing a Savior. But when it comes to our priests and bishops, we like to imagine that they have a direct line to heaven. They make little money, forsake a spouse and family and are at the immediate beck-and-call of their flocks. The lesson that Jesus gives his apostles with the Holy Thursday foot washing is that the greater they would become, the more they would have to humiliate themselves as the servants of all.

Catholicism insists that both bishops and priests should remain celibate— placing the love of the Mystical Body or the Church ahead of all other loves. At a time when most churches compromise on the moral teachings of Christ; the Catholic faith remains resolute about purity prior to marriage, about the permanence of marriage, about marriage as only a relationship between a man and a woman, about the nature of the marital act as open to the generation of children, and about the sanctity of human life. The loftier the moral message, the further the messenger might fall when he is exposed as duplicitous.

Our priests witness the marriages of couples in love, consecrating unions with the favor of God and of his Church. They baptize babies, transforming them from mere creatures of God into adopted sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. They absolve penitents from their sins, literally stealing the damned from the devil. At Mass they celebrate the sacrifice of Calvary so that we might offer ourselves with Jesus, the Lamb of God, as an acceptable oblation to the Father. They give us Holy Communion, rations from that promised shore to which we travel as spiritual pilgrims. Along with bishops, they offer confirmation, completing our baptisms so that we might be enriched by the gifts of the Spirit and made living temples of God. They anoint the sick, perpetuating the ministry of Jesus in bringing healing to the hurting among us. They bury the dead, preaching a message of hope that in Jesus love is stronger than death and victorious over the grave. The priest is at the center of everything Catholic. That is what makes the current scandal especially devastating. The faithful are rightly disappointed and upset. Our shepherds are facing a crisis in holiness.

Contagious Scandal & the Loss of Reputation

Any one priest signifies every priest. This collective appreciation has made the present crisis a damning one. When the laity look at their priests, they immediately wonder, “Could he be one of those priests?” While regarding only a few, these dark revelations of sin and crime are sufficient in damaging overall trust.

Men presumed as truthful revealed as duplicitous liars.

These are the same men appointed as preachers of the Gospel. The priest and pastor is the chief catechist of every parish and is entrusted with the faith formation of his people. What becomes of the message or the Good News when the messenger becomes a witness of bad or scandalous news? What becomes of his credibility when the mouthpiece of God not only stumbles in his witness but is unveiled as an agent of the devil’s anti-gospel? How can such a man speak to us about the truth when he has failed to put on the mind of Christ?

Men presumed as merciful exposed as sources for sin.

These are the men chosen to give flesh to the Divine Mercy in the ministry of the church. Who would want to go to confession to such rogues? Many might think that their sins pale in comparison to such reprobates. While the efficacy of the sacraments is assured; it is understandable that the faithful would feel stained or polluted by association with these men. Is it all just empty words and gestures? Compounding the problem, they sometimes substitute malice for mercy and draw others as accomplices into their lives of sin. How can such men draw us into the love of God when they do not have the heart of Christ?

Men presumed as healers caught as sadistic destroyers.

Jesus condemned the pharisees for placing unnecessary burdens upon good people. As an antidote he delivered the freedom and healing that belongs to the children of God. Priests were called to mend souls and to give hope, not to breach their victims from the family of God or to give them cause for despair. The miscreants in the news destroyed innocence and purposely misdirected the faith trajectory of people’s lives. They placed their own sexual gratification over sacred promises and the good of persons. How could they live with themselves, exchanging the joy of right relationship with God for a cruel transitory delight toward others? Even if there were a failure to love, did they not fear God?

Men presumed as pure are brought to light as defiled.

Priests are commissioned as eschatological signs of Christ’s kingdom. This is a basic premise behind the promise or vow of celibacy. Celibacy is not the same as chastity or virginity. Rather, it is a wondrous way of loving others. We are corporeal-spiritual composites, creatures of spirit and flesh. The purity of the body is supposed to immediately signify the virtuous nature of the soul, the existential resolution as one who loves the Lord so tremendously that it spills over in concern for the neighbor. As opposed to the pattern of the rich man going away sad because of his many possessions, it is the follower of Jesus who seeks to abandon earthly satisfaction so as to be rich in Christ. What happened to this singleness of purpose in these men? How is it that they could be satisfied with the carnal man when they were pledged to something greater, the one who lives in the Spirit?

Men presumed as holy are divulged as devils.

We are all called to be saints. That is our fundamental purpose in life. Christ as the new Adam comes into the world to restore an innocence that was lost by sin. The priest is charged as an instrument of the Lord to dispense the divine mysteries in making this objective possible. His ministrations allow us to enter in the saving paschal mystery. Here is where the sins of these men become a kind of blasphemy against all that is holy and good. Instead of realizing their role as sharers in Christ’s priesthood and extending his saving works, they look to the wimpish failure of the first Adam; indeed, worse than this, they play the role of the serpent. Do they not see how they have been thoroughly soiled as slaves to the devil? Have they stopped believing entirely?

We are told that a priest, even in mortal sin, can validly administer the sacraments. This is one of the great absurdities of faith and yet one necessary to insure the efficacy of the sacraments in the life of God’s people. Of course, while a bad priest might do some good, his bad character often sours the milk and corrupts or tears down what is built up. This dissimulation probably constitutes a special wound in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Our Lord is pained by the priest who is a cheat or hypocrite, even as he is supposed to be “another Christ” at the altar.

It remains a conundrum that a priest might take his people to the very gates of heaven but himself be unable to enter. While we might think that the graces of priesthood would make it easier for him to go to heaven; certain authorities have argued that it makes the prospect of hell more pressing and dangerous. Why? The more one is given, the more for which one will be held accountable. The priest knows better and cannot claim ignorance. Everything needed for salvation is immediately available. That makes any neglect inexcusable. Further, because he has been configured to Christ by his ordination, the devil targets him for every temptation and assault. At his altar, at his desk, in his car and in his bed he is always in the midst of a fierce battle with the prince demon of perdition. Priests who forget this will immediately stumble. The senses are especially targeted. The scandals of late all appeal to the flesh and sexuality. The sins committed are virtually unimaginable. Minds are clouded. Hearts are hardened. The devil will take any crack he can find to pierce the priest’s soul— smoking, drunkenness, gluttony, sloth, anger, jealousy, whatever. The devil may have failed in his temptation of Christ; but starting with his apostles and coming down through history to his priests and bishops of today, he has found men who sometimes falter and even become his property. Judas may not be the only bishop-priest in hell.

It is a terrible business when the weak link of faith is the shepherd. The weapons to hurt souls and to attack the Church then come from the very hands of the priest— hands that were consecrated for the chalice and the host. We as Catholics become our own worst enemies. It is at such times that we must remember that our faith is placed ultimately not in men but in God. We should also recall the saints, for theirs is the true legacy of the Church. Instead of running away, it becomes all the more imperative for God’s people to keep the faith and to demand fidelity and holiness of their priests. All sins might be forgiven, but the sins against innocence must not be forgotten. A reform of the Church will mean that some higher churchmen will have to step down, certain priests will have to be removed from ministry and others will have to embrace a heroic apostolate of penance and sanctity. This is not a time for window dressing but of a true moral reform, to deal both with a hostile secular modernity and a rigid clericalism that makes careerism and a fear of scandal into higher imperatives than protecting God’s flock from the robber and the wolf.

If we enter into the light (not afraid of what will be unmasked) and not in the darkness (where the roaches of sin hide), then we will truly walk with Christ. As opposed to the clamoring enemies of the Church who see the current scandal as the death knell for Catholicism, maybe it is an unavoidable summons to “grow up” and to become a more effective and genuine witness for Christ in the modern world? Divine providence is most unfathomable when God draws something of the good from the misdirected evil of men.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Aside, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Commandments, Devil, Hell, Homosexuality, Jesus, Magisterium, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Priests, Religion, Saints, Salvation, Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

How Do We Get Out of This Mess?

Posted on August 16, 2018 by Father Joe

802947510-612x612

His Enemy Came and Sowed Weeds All through the Wheat

These are dark days for the Church. One of my friends even said, “These scandals make me feel ashamed to work for the Church.” I well understood. At every Mass a priest mentions and prays for his bishop by name. What if a bishop should disappoint you or you discover that one was likely a reprobate? I suspect a number of priests have paused or recently winced during the saying of the Eucharistic prayer. In any case, we are called to pray for the good and the bad, always remembering as priests that we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.

153444973830414067 (1)

Jesus’ apostles often disappointed him— one even betrayed and despaired, taking his own life. I suppose the best of priests are wounded healers. Nevertheless, there are certain sins that cry out to heaven. I am reminded of one of the parables:

“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matthew 13:24-30)

Is it time for the harvest? It is so very hard to separate the weeds from the wheat. Indeed, the weeds threaten to strangle the wheat. We desperately want to see the weeds bundled and burned.

The Devil Made Me Do It

Alarmists about Vatican II regularly cite a quotation attributed to Pope Paul VI that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” While I neither have a naïve celebratory nor a pejorative view of the Council, I do feel that a diabolical attack upon the Church extending back to the very beginning of the incarnation is reaching a fever pitch in these latter days. The assault targets both clergy and lay. The complicit backdrop is a culture where sexual perversion is increasingly regarded as normative, where immigrant families are derided as criminals and subhumans and where mothers argue for the choice or right to murder their children.

153444973830414067

Just as Christ is the fulfillment of the ancient promise for redemption given our first parents; the devil is all about broken promises. He corrupted Adam but failed when it came to Jesus and that failure fills him with an eternal spite. He numbs consciences to the truth about the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons. He hardens hearts, not merely against charity but even about what should be obvious in regards to compassion, mercy and decency. Truth is an immediate casualty but so is the love that beckons to us from the Cross. We become comfortable with our sins and selfishness. Divine commands become weak suggestions.

Christ was tempted but could not fall; however, we still struggle with the brokenness of the first Adam. Apart from Christ we are destined to fail. The world pampers our pride. The flesh entices our senses. The devil seeks to oppress and even to possess us. Satan has a burning hatred for us and the Church. He lost the war against Christ but continues to corrupt and steal in skirmishes for individual souls. We should not pretend that the devil is a fool. He knows that the best way to hurt the Church is to undermine her ministers— as goes the priesthood, so goes the Church. It was only a matter of time that this crisis would turn to the bishops given that they possess the fullness of priesthood.

Jesus redeemed us and yet some would return to their bondage of suffering, sin and death. We hear the devil speaking through the mouths of his slaves all the time: “I am not a saint so why try? May we always be going to hell but never get there. You can’t tell me what to do. If it feels good then do it. It is my body. Everyone is doing it! Those foreigners are all drug dealers and rapists! I’ll run over anyone who gets in my way! Going to church is a waste of my time. To hell with her brains, I want her for her body. We don’t want his kind around here. It only becomes a baby if you want it.” Yes, I am convinced that the devil has a hand in this abuse scandal; but, of course, none of the guilty can escape personal culpability.

Man Has Made Himself the Measure of All Things

153444973830414067 (3)

Everything is salted with sensuality and eroticism: television, movies, music, books, art, the internet, etc. Fifty Shades of Grey becomes a bestselling book and it leads to sequels and films, affirming that pornography has truly gone mainstream. We feed our children to demons, not only with abortion but by eroticizing adolescents— dressing them as provocative adults, putting makeup on babies, romanticizing their juvenile relationships and allowing them to set the rules in our homes (giving them everything they want). We fill their heads with profane music and delight in their dancing, much as did lecherous Herod over Salome. Nevertheless, denying our own cooperation in sin, we point the finger at others when lines are crossed. Man imposes his strictures of fad as dictates over natural law, the height of lunacy. Few are willing to admit that gender confusion and same-sex unions have fashioned a twisted parody of marriage. A political correctness mislabels the clergy scandal so that it cannot be adequately addressed. We clamor about a few pedophiles when the problem remains a cabal of unsated homosexual pederasts.

Forbidden are a host of words and concepts like purity, chastity, virginity, temperance, obedience, duty, sacrifice, etc. Truth is no longer “what is” but simply “what we want it to be.” A Christian society has largely vanished. Many elements of the Church have given up the fight and have been seduced. Custody of the eyes is virtually impossible. If there remains any element of shame from damaged consciences and complicity in scandal then it is brushed aside by critics upon others. We find much of this transference in how the Church is faulted, especially her clergy. A problematical infestation of active homosexuals is ignored or tolerated because the culture wants to affirm and normalize homosexuality. Thus, the errant priests who largely target males are labeled as “pedophiles” when in actuality they are essentially repressed homosexuals acting out with other men or committing pederasty with older minors. (I must quickly add that this judgment should not diminish a respect for persons or insinuate that all homosexuals are a danger to minors. We need to be sympathetic to those who seek to be chaste and celibate, even if they should not be welcomed into holy orders.)

153444973830414067 (4)

Where do we go from here? Silence is not the answer; indeed, it becomes part of the problem. Moving the men around is not the answer; like shipping the trash out to sea it only makes a problem for others somewhere else. Much of the damage evades healing, at least in this world. What is done cannot be undone. (Many of us hoped and prayed that this problem was largely behind us.) Now we know that most of us will be long in the grave before these troubled seas are calm again.

The late cardinal-priest Avery Dulles was a prophet about this problem, urging adequate protections for innocent priests but also alerting the bishops that they should not exclude themselves from inspection, reprimand and public penance. When these issues first began to make headlines the USCCB recommended a day of penance for the laity to pray upon this issue— but the criticism was rightfully made that the laity would prefer to see the bishops and priests on their knees. The situation with the disoriented and misbehaving clergy might have been a symptom of a sick society and a repressive Church but still people were right to argue about the blinders that some of the shepherds were wearing. I suppose the issue of fault is often connected to liability and lawyers. It should be about contrition, amendment of life and penance.

The revelations during the last few weeks have caused many of us who love the Church, clergy and laity alike, to weep as we have prayed. How can we win back the confidence of God’s people as credible witnesses to the Gospel? The flock has every right to be upset at the many allegations of misconduct and the passivity from bishops in protecting our children. Where was accountability in all this? How could anyone move up the ranks of the hierarchy when there were sordid rumors and even past settlements for sexual misbehavior? Many of us are shaking our heads; it is so unbelievable. And yet, like throwing gasoline into an open fire, there are many in authority claiming “I did not know” or “We thought we could morally reform the man” or “A few of the details need correction or clarification.” No one should be falsely charged, either in the commission of heinous acts or as concealing that which cries out to be known; however, missteps were made and we will never move forward while there is a refusal to accept responsibility for how matters were handled.

I’m Mad as Hell and I am Not Going to Take This Anymore!

Most bishops do not regularly live and work in parishes. They may not be fully aware of how angry people are. I am reminded of the 1976 movie Network where the television newscaster shouts, “You’ve got to say: I’m a human being, g-dammit! My life has value! So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”

153444973830414067 (5)

As I said, the faithful have every right to be upset. They deserve good and holy priests. They should expect that their bishops and priests would love and protect them, especially the children. Will we see more empty pews? Will needed funds dry up? I cannot yet say, although I have heard more than one person say that he or she will be cutting back. As with the lawsuits and large monetary awards to victims and their lawyers— we could also end up victimizing the faithful in the pews and the needy in our communities. While the Church’s moral authority is compromised, we are still a voice and helping hand for the oppressed and the poor. What will happen to them if our resources are stripped away from the Church?

A Proposal for the Future

I have a hard time believing some of the things I am hearing. I do not want to believe it all. The deteriorating situation signifies bad news in terms of our credibility in proclaiming the Good News. Again, what must we do? Msgr. Charles Pope writes:

“As a lower-ranking priest I cannot issue demands or send binding norms to those in wider and upper ranks of the hierarchy, but I do want to say to God’s faithful how powerfully aware I am of their justified anger and agree with their insistence that something more than symbolic action or promises of future reform is necessary.”

At the end of his article at the National Catholic Register, he states:

“Remember, too, not every bishop or priest is equally to blame. Some are suffering as much as you are. However, no one, clergy or lay, should exempt himself from the task of summoning the Church to reform and greater holiness.”

That is exactly the case and I would like to applaud his courage and forthrightness in saying so.

153444973830414067 (6)

It is my view that only something drastic will make any difference in the current climate of anger and distrust. I am only a priest and maybe a poor one, but here are my suggestions:

There should be a new review board given over entirely to the laity (men and women) where bishops could participate as observers and advisors (on ecclesial protocols as well as canonical and theological questions.)
While certain facets of professional secrecy and the seal of confession would have to be respected, there should be no secret agreements and a general transparency in the process.
There would need to be collaboration with the Holy See, not only to modify certain canons of the Church (returning to the explicit language of the 1917 code), but to create an independent canonical board and to facilitate canonical trials.
This review board should also become a clearing house for charges against clergy, especially bishops; priests would be able to share what they know without fear of reprisal in their dioceses.
There should be a general purge of those in the upper hierarchy who have tolerated active homosexuality or who have failed in their duty to protect vulnerable persons and the young from predator priests (through either silence or shuffling clergy elsewhere).
There should be a bill of rights for priests to insure justice and due process in determining innocence or guilt along with a provision for legal representation (an innocent priest should not be reduced to bankruptcy in trying to defend his good name while Church lawyers defend bishops).
Continue to insure that those who have abused or harmed minors would be permanently removed from Church ministries.
Insure that all programs of priestly formation also include regular psychological evaluation from a therapist who assents to Church teaching on human sexuality, not minimizing issues like consensual heterosexual relations (fornication), homosexual acts, masturbation, pornography and/or a general discomfort around women.
Forbid seminary formation to anyone who has committed homosexual acts and permanently remove any priests from ministry who violate their celibacy in committing them.
Suspend a priest from active ministry who has violated his celibacy with heterosexual acts, requiring either his laicization or that he spend five years doing penance in a monastic environment along with appropriate counseling prior to returning to ministry in another (arch)diocese.
Reparation for victims that brings some degree of healing and help to those harmed while not destroying the resources that rightly belong to those in the pews and to those assisted by our charity and justice initiatives. (Do we have to review the “corporate sole” model?)
Promote policies that both protect vulnerable persons and yet insure fair and just treatment for those accused.
As witnessed by Pope Francis, bishops should be required in all cases to live a very modest lifestyle with no more perks than those given to the poorest priest.
A penitential reform within the Church that would fully restore the Friday fasting and abstinence practices of the past for everyone and add particular acts of penance (over and above this) for all bishops and priests.
A daily campaign of praying the Rosary and/or the Liturgy of the Hours for the sanctification of priests, the fidelity of the Church and the conversion of sinners.
Restore the Prayer of St. Michael the Archangel to the liturgy, either at the end of the bidding prayers or at the conclusion of the Mass (Satan needs to be uprooted).

Reverse the Pyramid: Faithful Laity Can Save the Church

This is one of those situations where the good suffer along with the bad. The true “sensus fidelium” is not with dissenters, but with the faithful laity and they are the ones through their prayers and intervention who will now make a difference. Everyone should pray for the Church. Dialogue with the bishops and priests must be fair and open. This is not a situation the bishops can fix. As one person said to me, “Their credibility is shot!”

pyramid inverted

I noticed online that a few of the Hollywood celebrities have added their two cents (mostly negative) to this crisis in the Church. It would seem to me that when it comes to scandal they should be the last ones to talk, but I suppose it makes good fodder for deflection. Pointing to the sins of others takes the attention off one’s own. Years ago when these scandals first broke, I asked an elderly priest (who has since gone to God) about such matters. He explained that he was surprised about the child abuse but that the problem of errant priests was not new. However, he explained, the Church treated transgressions (as when a priest fell with a woman) entirely as moral ones, not focusing on psychological issues or any kind of pathology beyond the man’s control. It was presumed that after a reprimand, going to confession, a retreat and a verbal assurance of repentance— that a priest might be returned to ministry. Evidently, when it came to some of them, and particularly regarding disordered urges and an attraction to youth, no such assurances could be trusted.

153460881053501909 (1)

There has been a great deal in the news about allegations of misconduct by Cardinal McCarrick. He has resigned from the College of Cardinals and Pope Francis has ordered him to pursue a “life of prayer and penance.” There is not much more that I can say about what has come out about Cardinal McCarrick. He was a great communicator and extremely charismatic. We clashed years ago when I openly opposed the practice of giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians. I am still deeply troubled about such policies, although the scope seems to be expanding to include invitations for those in adulterous unions to take the sacrament and even to receive absolution. How can the mortal sins of enabling murder or committing marital infidelity properly dispose one for the divine mysteries? I shake my head. Maybe I am too stupid to understand? I promised him years ago that I would pray for him daily. Now, more than before, I am dedicated to keeping that promise.

The Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report on sex abuse in the Catholic Church was hard to read. I became overwhelmed by grief and wept. How could this happen? Priests are called “Father” and fathers are supposed to protect, nurture and heal their children. My next emotion was anger. Men broke their promises and they lied about it. Others were so afraid of scandal and litigation that they apparently kept silent. Was this the Church for which I sought to be a priest by entering the seminary 40 years ago? Our faith is ultimately not in weak men but in Jesus who is God come down from heaven to save us. Given all the negativity and the painful stories, how is it affecting the people in the pews? (I am planning a monthly parish program on the saints. That is where we find the real legacy of the Church. We will focus on those who faithfully ran the race and won their crowns.)

Years ago when I heard that Cardinal Wuerl was coming to Washington I was delighted as I had been a fan of his catechism, The Teaching of Christ, going back to my college seminary days. His little book, The Mass: The Glory, the Mystery, the Tradition, co-authored with Mike Aquilina, is a real gem and a useful tool in teaching about the Eucharistic liturgy. As one of his priests, it is hard to hear all the criticism from his time in Pittsburgh. It seems to me that he did so very much to make a positive difference in protecting children. Did he stumble at some point? I am certain that there are many families and victims appreciative for what he tried to do for them. There has been some talk that the Grand Jury Report got a number of particulars wrong. I am not in possession of all the facts and so I will leave it up to others to figure out. I will keep him in my prayers, especially in the Mass, and urge our good people in the pews not to despair.

I am reminded of John Cardinal Newman’s work on the Arian crisis and St. Athanasius when so many of the bishops had fallen into heresy. He concluded that in the fourth century the laity were the heroes who had saved the day for the true faith. While the Lord will be the one to ultimately separate the weeds from the wheat or the goats from the lambs, we need to trust our good lay men and women today. I am not talking about dissenters but the homeschooling family, the teacher in the parish school, the volunteers running the bible study, the Blue Army lady always rattling off her beads in the lonely church, the teenager eager to serve Mass, the Knights of Columbus men who actively live out charity in communities, the virtuous souls who march for life and stand outside abortion clinics praying for the unborn and their parents, the reader faithful to his service, the altar guild ladies who help set up for the liturgy, etc. Allowing the laity to take the lead may be hard for bishops as it seems to be a surrender of their authority; however, in truth this is precisely the kind of humiliation that may restore their moral jurisdiction as servants of the Most High God.

Statement from the Archdiocese of Washington to Pastors

Many of you have addressed the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report, as well as the Archbishop McCarrick matter in homilies or comments to your parishioners. Cardinal Wuerl requests that you not shy away from addressing these matters again in a spirit and manner that you feel appropriate. He also requests that you include in your Prayers of the Faithful the following intercession:

“For young people and our most vulnerable that they remain safe and protected, and for those survivors of abuse whether by power or violence, especially by the clergy who have not lived up to their call to holiness. Let us pray to the Lord.”

Finally, as a concluding prayer after the Prayers of the Faithful, he requests the following Prayer for Healing Victims of Abuse from the USCCB:

God of endless love,
ever caring, ever strong,
always present, always just:
You gave your only Son
to save us by the blood of his cross.

Gentle Jesus, shepherd of peace,
join to your own suffering
the pain of all who have been hurt
in body, mind, and spirit
by those who betrayed the trust placed in them.

Hear our cries as we agonize
over the harm done to our brothers and sisters.
Breathe wisdom into our prayers,
soothe restless hearts with hope,
steady shaken spirits with faith.
Show us the way to justice and wholeness,
enlightened by truth and enfolded in your mercy.

Holy Spirit, comforter of hearts,
heal your people’s wounds
and transform our brokenness.
Grant us courage and wisdom, humility and grace,
so that we may act with justice
and find peace in you.

We ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

FROM CARDINAL WUERL:

153460881053501909

Episcopal Support as Pope Carries Out Reform

Statement Regarding Archbishop McCarrick

Statement on PA Grand Jury Report

Statement in Response to Grand Jury Report (in full)

But Judging Credibility in Abuse Cases Is a Tough Call

“I Met with Every Victim” (TV Interview)

FROM OTHER SOURCES:

Scapegoating Cardinal Wuerl

Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report Debunked

Pope Francis is on the Side of the Victims of Pennsylvania Abuse

The Good Ole Shepherds Club

Bishops will Have to Sacrifice Power & Privilege to Resolve the Abuse Crisis

Bishop Morlino: ‘Homosexual Subculture’ a Source of Devastation

After PA Grand Jury Report, Will Laws Change to Better Protect Children?

US Bishops Express Anguish Over Abuse Reports

Active Homosexuality in the Priesthood Helped Cause This Crisis

Janet Smith to Bishops: ‘Save the Church — Tell Everything’

Filed under: Archdiocese, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Commandments, Conscience, Devil, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Fatherhood, Forgiveness, Fornication, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Priests, Pro-Life, Religion, Repentance, Right to Life, Sacraments, Saints, Sexuality, Sin, Youth | 5 Comments »

The Heat & Controversy Continues…

Posted on January 2, 2018 by Father Joe

The three bishops essentially cite Pope John Paul II. The argument seems more and more with the historical Magisterium itself and settled doctrine. Here is one instance:

“The other principle is that of truth and consistency, whereby the church does not agree to call good evil and evil good. Basing herself on these two complementary principles, the church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34).

When it comes to the “ordinary magisterium” and opinions that conflict with settled doctrine, filial correction is an act of loyalty. Indeed, silence would be the act of betrayal.

While annulments are now free (they used to cost a thousand dollars or more) this is the first year in the Archdiocese of Washington (so I am told) that we have not had a backlog of cases. Many couples in irregular unions now feel that annulments are unnecessary and that they can freely return to the sacraments. I have had several people in my parish drop writing their cases while citing news about the Pope and “changes that are coming.” Misunderstandings abound… but there is also legitimate confusion where there should be clarity.

There are a number of voices that interpret any criticism or request for clarification as disloyalty to the Pope and as dissent. However, one cannot be a dissenter when he or she stands with the long-standing and immutable doctrines of the Catholic faith. One critic said that we should immediately discount the remarks of these “no name” bishops. But note that they quote the saintly Pope John Paul II of living memory! Further, Bishop Athanasius Schneider is not a “no name” bishop. He is a man dedicated to Catholic truth and one who has paid his dues in terms of faith witness. Although he is German, his family was sent to a gulag by Stalin. His mother was imprisoned and martyred in 1963 for helping and sheltering other Christians and a Ukrainian priest. He grew up in the outlawed underground Catholic Church and took his early sacraments in secret. He is the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan and titular bishop of Celerina. He has added his voice to many others in regard to the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. While whole conferences of bishops have offered correctives, as in Poland, there are notable names daily added to the list as having serious concerns. The names (to name a few) include Cardinal Burke, Archbishop Chaput, Archbishop Sample, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, and two respected Catholic philosophers, John Finnis and Germain Grisez.

Popes can interpret but they cannot reverse or make up new Church teachings. The case must be made, as Cardinal Wuerl suggests, that Church praxis and discipline can change without altering Church doctrine. However, it has not yet been made and many of us cannot imagine how it might be done. One cannot legitimately silence a debate or discussion with ecclesial authority when the overwhelming gravity seems entirely with traditional and perpetual teaching. Those who claim to be following the Holy Father are suggesting that we can invite those in adulterous unions to receive the sacraments, including both the Eucharist and confessional absolution. A number of priests feel, as I do, that this would make us accomplices in the mortal sin of others (who are neither contrite nor who have a firm purpose of amendment).

Marco Tosatti’s sensational blog, in my estimation goes too far. He writes:

“La mia fonte in Vaticano mi ha confidato che ieri sera Bergoglio si è trattenuto a Santa Marta con diversi ‘addetti stampa’ vaticani e ‘consiglieri’ vari per una riunione sul come affrontare questo nuovo ‘imprevisto’ della Correzione dei Vescovi di Astana. La fonte mi ha detto che Omissis era furibondo. E’ andato su tutte le furie. Perchè non sopporta nessuna opposizione. Lo hanno sentito urlare: ‘Se ne pentiranno! Se ne pentiranno amaramente!’. Riferito ovviamente ai coraggiosi Vescovi che hanno ‘osato’ contraddire il neovangelo della neochiesa: l’Amoris Laetitia.”

This is really more gossip and possible calumny than information that furthers the discussion. I just cannot imagine the vindictiveness that the blogger suggests. Absent is the charity exhibited by the many bishops and priests wanting clarification while rightly professing fidelity and respect to the Holy See.

The best posture is to pray for the Holy Father and for faithful and loyal clergy who are trying to safeguard the truth while showing real compassion to sinners. Pray for the couples and families as well… many of us want to bring them spiritual medicine, not placebos.

Filed under: Annulment, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Confession, Discipleship, Eucharist, Faith, Fornication, Heaven, Hell, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Pope, Pope Francis, Religion, Repentance, Sacraments, Salvation, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Tradition | Leave a comment »

Not the Clarification for Which Many Were Waiting

Posted on December 4, 2017 by Father Joe

CLICK THE PICTURE ABOVE FOR LINK

Last year the Buenos Aires bishops interpreted the pope’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia so as to permit those sexually active in invalid unions to receive Holy Communion (in certain cases). The Holy Father praised their interpretation in a private letter (September 5, 2016) to Bishop Sergio Alfredo Fenoy, the Delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region of the Bishops’ Conference of Argentina. He wrote, “El escrito es muy bueno y explicita cabalmente el sentido del capitulo VIII de Amoris laetitia. No hay otras interpretaciones.” (Translation: The document is very good and clearly explains the meaning of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations). On June 5, 2017 by order of a papal rescript, both the Criteria or Interpretation of the Buenos Aires bishops and the papal letter were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, purportedly making this the position of the Church’s “authentic Magisterium.” This seems to conflict with the teaching of Pope John Paul II and with the current Code of Canon Law (canon 752). It would affect our discipline about Holy Communion and even Confessional Absolution. Cardinal Wuerl insists that the doctrine has not changed, just the pastoral discipline. I think I will go back to praying on my knees for awhile on this one.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Confession, Conscience, Divorce, Eucharist, Faith, Family, Forgiveness, Fornication, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Pope, Pope Francis, Religious, Sacramentals, Salvation, Sexuality, Sin | 4 Comments »