Marriage | 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 »

Celibacy is the Solution

Posted on February 27, 2019 by Father Joe

Author’s Note: I am amazed at how much negative feedback, especially from non-celibates, was sent to me about this article– much unworthy of publishing. It demonstrates to me that there is a real and dangerous prejudice against Christian celibacy and a reductionism from some that minimizes its importance and value. I was happy to see that a brother priest, who is actively involved with our archdiocesan seminary in Washington, DC, has shared positive thoughts on the topic that are similar to my own. Fr. Carter Griffin has written a wonderful article first published in FIRST THINGS and now posted at the CERC website: “Celibacy: The Answer, Not the Problem.”

While there are trite sayings to the contrary, simple answers are not always the best answers. This is particularly the case with the assumption of some that the impetus for the clergy abuse crisis is the imposition of an “unhealthy” and “unnatural” celibacy. Despite the deceptive eroticism and deprecation of both celibacy and purity that permeates our modern culture, there is nothing malignant or disordered about celibacy. Acknowledging a supernatural component to Christian celibacy, it is a manner of living and loving that is completely natural. Given the current scandals, celibacy is not the problem, but the solution. The answer that many are seeking to our troubles is not the wholesale allowance of married clergy. That would not resolve issues of abuse; indeed, it would introduce a host of new difficulties like marital infidelity and divorce. This is not to say that men in good and holy unions could not serve as faithful Catholic priests; all I am asserting is that this is no miracle solution to the Church’s ills.

What is the real solution? We should demand that celibate priests remain faithful to their sacred promise. If priests behave themselves then there will be no incidents of child abuse, assaulted nuns, illegitimate children and homosexual liaisons. Just as the Church implores married couples to keep their vows; our priests should do the same and thus give a witness and proclamation devoid of duplicity.

While we cannot demand that all heterosexual candidates for priesthood must be virgins, we can certainly establish it as the Church’s preference. Sexual activity prior to a life of priestly celibacy is not a positive element in their formation. We cannot make mortal sin a prerequisite for the sacrament of holy orders. I have known seminarians so tragically shadowed by memories of heterosexual promiscuity that they felt compelled to discern out of formation for holy orders.

I still do not buy the argument that repressed but active homosexuality is not a major factor in the current abuse scandal. There are few pedophile cases and way too many instances of homosexual pederasty. Given this assessment, I think the Church should have a general prohibition against “active” homosexuals in formation and priesthood. When I say active, I mean “one strike and you are out.” We cannot give homosexual relations the same moral value or weight given to heterosexuality. Homosexual acts are always sinful; heterosexual relations in the marital act are holy and befitting the plan of God.

Given this distinction, I would argue that a priest who falls with a woman might be forgiven by the Church and returned to ministry. Prudence and discipline would demand a period of real penance and soul-searching. That is why I have suggested a few years of suspension in such cases where a man might deliberate with professionals and speak to the Lord about the status of his vocation. If his priesthood should prove salvageable, then he could reassigned, preferably to another diocese. Admittedly, some would disagree with me but the problem here is no disorientation and granted consensuality, not a matter of abuse. It is simply, albeit tragically, a case of mortal sin that can be absolved in the confessional.

The matter of an immoral heterosexual liaison becomes more problematical if there should be offspring. Whatever determination is made, the priest in this situation has an obligation to both claim the child (fatherly relationship) and to help provide financial support. Forgiveness does not dismiss the need for restitution. While discretion is required, there should be no cases of women being paid off by dioceses and children growing up without knowing the identity of their fathers. Hopefully, God’s people might be forgiving when such stories are inadvertently exposed. I do not foresee published lists of priests who have had children out of wedlock.

Christian celibacy cannot be identified with the variation in Buddhism which is directed toward spiritual enlightenment. Christian celibacy is not the same as that practiced in Hinduism for the sake of greater physical strength and longevity. Christian celibacy finds no counterpart in Islam which utterly renounces celibacy. Christian celibacy cannot be compared with the secular or humanistic version that temporarily utilizes celibacy to target one’s energies and purpose toward economic or business success. More than chastity, Christian celibacy is regarded in Catholicism as a gift given by God and then returned to God by the disciple. It is a manner of fulfilling the request that Jesus gave to the rich man who went away sad because his possessions were many. It is the ultimate response to the twofold commandment of Christ. The Christian celibate loves the Lord with his whole heart, body and soul. That same love spills out into a loving service of others. Married Christians can also keep this commandment, although that divine love is first showered upon one’s spouse and children. It is a love and commitment shared. The celibate priest sees himself as married to the Church. He belongs wholly to the Lord and to his people.

It is somewhat ironic but true that even the necessary measures put into place to thwart the abuse of minors has damaged the actualization of this celibate love. The priest’s relationship to the Church is spousal. His relationship to those in the pews is paternal. He is to exhibit a spiritual fatherhood in his ministration of the sacraments and pastoral care. Unfortunately, so as to protect the young, their access to their priests is seriously undermined. A terminal distrust and suspicion has walled the priest off from many of his spiritual children— thus hampering spiritual bonding, counsel and even (in some cases) their access to sacraments like confession.

Despite the negative propaganda and the ill-informed solutions that attack the heart of the priesthood, celibacy remains one of the great treasures of the Western priesthood. We should not be quick to throw it away. Here is the big surprise for many critics— most celibate priests remain happy with their vocation.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Fornication, Homosexuality, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Priests, Sexuality, Sin | 4 Comments »

The Importance of Faith-Talk in Love

Posted on February 19, 2019 by Father Joe

155059121237566314

The manner in which parents and their youth dialogue will change as members get older. Parents take absolute charge over small children. As the children become adolescents and teens, it becomes increasingly important that parents both speak and listen. Parents are still owed respect and obedience, particularly while children live under their roof. Youth need to temper their natural rebelliousness and desire for independence as they get older. All should seek a level of patience and true understanding. Parents need to do all they can to share their faith and values with the young. However, there will come a time when they will have to let go and hope that it was enough. Each of us is his or her own person. Sometimes we will be disappointed or upset at the life-choices of others, but we should never close the door to love and affection.

We must understand that we do not absolutely control the dialogue or the faith-talk. Given that the conversation genuinely reflects the truth of the Gospel, we must be disposed or open both to listen and to talk. It is a prerequisite that faith-talk is backed up with an honest discipleship. Hypocrisy will poison the best of moral arguments and exhortations. Before we speak, we must first listen. The conversation is not limited to the parent and the child. They must both listen to the voice of God that speaks to us in Scripture and in prayer. Our Lord tells us that there will be graced times when the Holy Spirit will give us the words to say. Otherwise, the conversation will be entirely horizontal in its scope, focusing on the earthly needs and wants but bypassing the heavenly. Indeed, if not properly informed, dialogue can become trite and consist of merely sharing banal platitudes. A mutual sharing of ignorance does little to procure truth and wisdom. Faith-talk must also engage the head and the heart. It is insufficient just to be right; we must also be compassionate and merciful.

“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’ He summoned the crowd and said to them, ‘Hear and understand’” (Matthew 15:8-10).

When we talk and share our faith and ourselves there is an element of self-donation. A parent is to pour out himself so as to satisfy the thirst of the children. What is this thirst? It is many things— a desire for the truth, a yearning for transcendental meaning, a longing for acceptance, etc. Preliminary to this faith-talk is having an ear to hear. We must listen first to God and then to one another. Too often we hear only what we want to hear. Listening means a receptivity that alternately summons both satisfaction and great displeasure.

“Do you not yet understand or comprehend? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and not see, ears and not hear?” (Mark 8:17-18).

Members of families may become afraid of what they might hear and they will try to run away— refusing to talk and to listen. They may surround themselves with noise or distractions. But running away is not really the posture of Christians. We are called to take up our crosses and to follow the Lord. Look at Matthew 16:22-23. The apostle Peter is remembered for both listening and closing his ears. After Jesus prophesied his betrayal, passion and death, Peter rebukes, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” Jesus immediately responds, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

What is the ultimate purpose of faith-talk? A message is given and received. Faith-talk is always a summons to greater understanding and fidelity. It requires a response. We must each answer the call given us. Faith-talk is geared to a change or confirmation of direction. We are called to action. We are also called to a continuing transformation and growth in holiness.

“Whoever has ears ought to hear. To what shall I compare this generation? It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn’” (Matthew 11:15-17).

Within every calling there are other callings. Each of us is to called to know Christ and to be holy. That is the precious gift that comes with faith and baptism. We all have differing God-given gifts. We also have varying crosses— mental, physical and social. While we can know the Lord’s grace, we are each wounded by weakness and sin. It is within this that we receive our vocations to love and service. While it might seem a contradiction, there are many paths on the one road to Christ. The specifics of one person’s journey may differ from another’s. Hopefully, we are all going in the same direction, even if there are detours along the way. Sharing our faith and values is important as it helps us to get our bearings when our journeys intersect the paths of other pilgrims.

Children will always be obliged to honor their parents, no matter how old they may become. The nature of obedience changes, but respect and cherishing persons remains the same. The deepest of pains a person can experience is when a parent is dishonorable or when a child hurts himself through rebellion or walking away from the good, the true and the holy. Parents weep for their children. Children suffer when parents fall from their pedestals of honor by giving bad example or by closing their hearts to them.

The expression faith-talk is deceptive because sometimes the conversation does not need words. I remember a family that had lost their five year old son in an accidental pool drowning. They did not speak English and my Spanish was poor and broken. I sat with them and we cried together. Sometimes just a presence can speak volumes about love. Because of the incarnation, the human-connection makes possible the God-connection. Family members can be there with each other. Ministers and friends can enter this circle of love and help with healing when they have no words— yes, even when words get in the way.

When I think of unconditional love I recall the story of a poor woman whose son was sentenced to life in prison for murder. When everyone was convinced of his guilt, she was the one person who never lost faith in her son. Guilty or not, she loved him. He insisted that he was innocent. Since they were poor the court appointed a lawyer who quickly made a deal and manipulated the young man to take it. The judge broke the deal and gave him the harshest of sentences. Years went by and most forgot about the case— but not his mother. She worked long hours mopping floors and scrubbing toilets for minimum wage to raise money for a good lawyer and a new trial. She spent twenty years in fatigue and tears but never losing hope. When she had raised what she needed, she got him an attorney who found problems in how the initial trial was conducted. Still most thought she had wasted her life for a scoundrel of no worth. But to her, he was the whole world. As it turned out, the evidence was mishandled and a follow up investigation ensued where another man was found to be the real assailant. Her son was released from prison. The one person to meet him when he passed through the gates was this woman older than her years but filled with joy. She had her boy back again.

This woman was a living parable of the Christ-story. She sacrificed her life to liberate and save her son. Such people show us the depth of unconditional love that God has for each of us as his children. Along with all the other things shared by mothers and fathers, this may be the most important message to which they witness. The mother in the story had few facts about the case. Indeed, for all she knew, her son was guilty. He did hang out with the wrong people. He had committed a few juvenile offenses. He was no saint. But she became a saint to save him. She sacrificed herself not because she knew he was innocent, but because she loved him. Our Lord lays down his life for the guilty. Again, it has all to do with unconditional love.

Questions for Parents

Your daughter comes to you in tears and reveals that she is pregnant out of wedlock? Is your immediate response anger and condemnation? Can your love for her and the unborn child overrule your anger and shame or would you counsel her to have an abortion and erase a mistake?
Your son adopts a swinging lifestyle. Would you as a father boast about him “sowing his oats” or would you challenge him to be modest and to respect women as persons with dignity and as potential wives and mothers?
Your son lazily hangs around the house and will not get a job. Would you nag him and label him as a bum? Would you challenge him to step up, find self-respect, and give him assistance in moving forward?
Your teen drops out of school, starts drinking and taking drugs, hangs out with a dangerous crowd, and gets arrested. Would you throw him out and disown him or would you seek intervention so that he might turn his life around?
Your kid tells you that he is gay or that she is a lesbian. Is your response riddled with words of derision and strong disappointment? Do you turn your back on him or her? Do you affirm that there is still a place in your home and in the church for your kid? Most Catholic people who identify as LGBTQ want help to preserve the faith and family bonds. Do you know how to love someone even when you cannot support all of his or her actions? Are you willing to witness Christ as one who will never abandon such loved-ones on their life-journey?

Filed under: Catholic, Faith, Family, Marriage, Religion | Leave a comment »

Ramblings about Fornication, Adultery and Homosexuality

Posted on December 7, 2018 by Father Joe

None of these topics stand alone. Once human sexuality is pursued more for pleasure than for parenthood, the flood walls open. Sex is separated from marriage. This truth about fornication immediately leads to that which is the primary cause of divorce, adultery. Once sex is separated from marriage, it is very hard to reattach. The critics of Church teaching might not always argue for blatant promiscuity; but they are apologists for sex outside of marriage. They will even resort to semantics. Just as contraceptive use is regarded as “responsible parenthood” and abortion is labeled “choice,” fornication is classified as “pre-ceremonial sex.” It is expected that couples will “live together” or cohabitate prior to actual marriage. That which was wrongly explored as a way to test the waters is increasingly becoming a non-contractual alternative to marriage. However, mortal sin is not a good preparation for matrimony. Indeed, it makes one ill-disposed to God’s grace. It also cheapens the message of love. True love seeks the good of the beloved, placing his or her needs ahead of one’s own desires. Men and women are called to marriage where they can be helpmates to each other in holiness and grace. The institution of marriage is an important level of protection for the spouse and the children. It is crafted as a vocation of monogamous love defined by discipline, duty and dependence (the three d’s). Indeed, some shy away from marriage because it is a public proclamation of obligation and responsibility. Christian love is always sacrificial and seeks redemption in Christ. Husbands and wives need to assist each other in becoming saints and going to heaven. Love of a superficial depth or that which suffers from a counterfeit faith would place the object of one’s attentions into mortal sin and risk the pains and loss of hell. How is that true love? What would happen to the beloved if death should overtake him or her prior to the full acquisition of the marriage bed?

When it comes to the vocation of marriage, promises are made to be kept. Jesus forbids divorce. But what becomes of fidelity when no formal promises are made at all?

Catholicism promotes an honest appreciation of sexuality and human weakness. Looking first to dating or courtship, heavy petting and French kissing are sinful outside of marriage as they make self-control difficult and often lead to either intercourse or oral sex. Men and women are not robots. We must always be cognizant of time and place when we are with others. Public places are safer than private locations. Late hour encounters might be more liable for violations of persons than how we carry ourselves in the daylight. There is also a heightened value upon meeting a nice girl or boy at church or school over encountering strangers at a pick-up bar.

Critics contend that the Church places too much emphasis upon sex. However, the truth is the other way around. It is secular society and Christian revisionists that place such extreme gravity in sexual activity that it becomes an ends unto itself. The slippery slope begins that will eventually set the stage for even perverse desires and the demand that homosexuality be normalized.

One of the loudest critics of Catholic teaching on human sexuality is Fr. James Martin. It has been argued (to my satisfaction) that Fr. James Martin does not think with the mind of the Church upon the matter of homosexuality. He would contend otherwise, quoting the universal catechism that those who regard themselves as homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” [CCC 2358]. This is as it should be but how would we parse the definition of discrimination? Too many priests of his sort would affirm both the disorientation and same-sex unions. It may be that many young men come to their priests wanting to hear the hard truth— that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is always and everywhere the matter of mortal sin. The scandal here is that priests are summoned as prophetic voices for Christ to preach and teach the truth. The substitution of our own opinion or words for the often challenging Word of God leads the children of God astray.

I do not believe we should have any part in attempting to normalize being gay. While much is made of homosexual marriage or same-sex unions, the truth is far more sordid in that the majority of active gays are highly promiscuous. I also think it is problematical to ordain gay men, particularly those with past encounters. We should not fall prey to the false toleration of secular culture over the commission to be signs of contradiction in our world. We must respect the inherent dignity of persons even if we cannot always approve of everything that people do. A facet of the dilemma we face is that homosexuals are increasing making their sexual orientation into a primary factor of personal identity. This inadvertently impoverishes the depth of meaning that defines human persons. We are so much more than our sexual drives and romantic proclivities. The need for love, affection and friendship should not be limited to or strictly defined by genital activity. Sexual union should also always be in accord with the natural congress of a man and woman entitled to the marital act.

Discernment of the moral character of the man or woman would neither turn a blind eye to sexual affections nor dismiss a history of genital activity; however, the measure of a person also includes many other pertinent attributes such as fidelity to promises, generosity of spirit, courage in keeping obligations and a willingness to sacrifice for others. My analysis as a heterosexual but celibate Catholic priest is that Christian gay men and women are called by God to respond in a profound way with lives of prayer, loving service and perfect continence. The Gospel would never deny love to any child of God; however, we must distinguish what does and does not constitute genuine loving.

I should add that if the scandalous allegations are true, then Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is the most typical case of the homosexual abuser in the Church. Supposedly he had relations with men and minors. Eighty percent or more of the abuse cases narrated in the Church are with young males and often within the teen years (pederasty and not true pedophilia). However, many of the bishops and Fr. Martin insist (against the facts) that there is no correlation between homosexuality and abuse. Until this connection is admitted, I have to wonder if we will reliably deal with the current scandal. By contrast, recent remarks by Pope Francis would allow that active homosexuals should be respected and loved as God’s children, but they should be denied entry into holy orders. The Pope does not see homosexuality as a neutral matter. There is concurrence with the universal catechism that speaks about it as a disordered attraction.

Sexual activity is the exclusive right of heterosexual spouses. We are all obliged to keep the sixth and ninth commandments. The commandment against adultery focuses upon illicit sexual activity. By extension it would also include general fornication, prostitution, pornography, homosexual acts, masturbation, orgies, rape, incest, pedophilia, pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia.

The Pope may not want homosexuals in the priesthood but the Holy Father is outspoken about his desire to welcome people who feel alienated by the Church. I suspect that what muddies the waters are efforts to welcome homosexuals and those in invalid second marriages as full or practicing members of the Church. Can we truly affirm the dignity of persons and sympathize with their struggles when the first words out of our mouths are those of condemnation and judgment? Might there be a better way? While critics of the Church are wrong to demand absolute acceptance of activity and states of life ruled as immoral or sinful from Scripture and Tradition; is there a praxis that might preserve their link to the faith community and the possibility of a healing or merciful accompaniment? I have been critical of the open table in regards to the reception of Holy Communion. If one is not spiritually disposed toward the Eucharist, then would we not be bringing down divine judgment upon the heads of such people? How can we give absolution to those in adulterous or intimate same-sex relationships if there is no firm purpose of amendment of life? This is where much of the debate is taking place.

Along with fornication and adultery, homosexual acts are listed by St. Paul as among those sins that can cost us our share in Christ’s kingdom. The Church struggles to distinguish the disordered nature of homosexuality from the actual commission of homosexual sin (an intrinsic evil). Many refuse to acknowledge this delineation and/or see it as a renouncement of persons. Acts against nature are always regarded by the faith as abusive. Of course, here again our secular society wants to avoid this verdict. One has to wonder how far the sexual toleration can be stretched. Does it already include multiple partners? Are bestiality and pedophilia waiting in the wings for general acceptance?

Filed under: Adultery, Catholic, Celibacy, Divorce, Family, Fornication, Homosexuality, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Pope Francis, Religion, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | Leave a 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 »

Still Struggling with Accompaniment

Posted on March 9, 2018 by Father Joe

152056519364959384

Catholics in irregular unions have been encouraged to receive spiritual communion at Mass despite their marital status. How is this even possible should they be absolutely ill-disposed to grace? Cardinal Kasper argues if they should be urged to receive the one then why not the other— the actual reception of Holy Communion. Should they be excluded from the Eucharist? He acknowledges that the reception of the Eucharist does not mean that they can contract a new “sacramental” marriage while the prior spouse is alive. This has not changed.

Regarding charges of a doctrinal shift, Cardinal Donald Wuerl stated in a letter, “No, the Church’s teaching has not changed; objective truth remains unaffected.” Similarly, Cardinal Müller has said in regard to the permanency of marriage that “This is a matter of a consolidated magisterial teaching, supported by scripture and founded on a doctrinal reason.” This embattled issue is the praxis by which we might seek to assist couples in irregular unions at moving toward a “new integration” into the Church that would respect both the dignity of marriage and make possible a restoration to the sacramental life. I would concur with Cardinal Gerhard Müller that efforts by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn and Cardinal Walter Kasper to reconcile a changed pastoral practice with traditional dogma in Amoris Laetitia (chapter 8) are not convincing. Cardinal Müller states, “Thus, a paradigm shift, by which the Church takes on the criteria of modern society to be assimilated by it, constitutes not a development, but a corruption.”

Cardinal Kasper cites five criteria for the proper disposition to receive Holy Communion:

Genuine sorrow or contrition over the failed bond;
Views the restoration of the prior bond as utterly impossible;
Appreciates that abandoning the second bond would incur new guilt;
Attempts to live the second marriage in the “context of faith”; and
Yearns for the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist.

These are not wholly the traditional requirements, which are: (1) being in the state of grace, 2) having fasted for one hour, and 3) appropriate devotion and/or attention. Pastorally I can sympathize with what he is trying to do; however, I cannot give my support to what must still be regarded as an adulterous union. Indeed, while there is tremendous sympathy for those who have entered into an irregular union, nothing is said about the abandoned and proper spouse. Where is the concern that the spousal support and affection that should come to him or her is instead given to an another, an interloper? Despite the context of feelings or emotions, there is an objective order that is not changed by sentiment or even by expressed sorrow. True contrition should lead to an amendment of life. It seems to me that this revisionist stance is a denial of personal heroism and a betrayal of the Church’s support, either for the abandoned spouse or should they both be culpable, for the valid marital union that is wounded.

Certain proponents contend that secular divorce should be weighed in the equation, a determination that is often required before annulment proceedings. The Church seems to give certain deference to secular authority over marriage and divorce even though that same authority does not acknowledge the Church’s jurisdiction. For instance, the courts have no reservation at rendering divorces, not merely for those married before civil magistrates, but for those whose marriages were witnessed before priests and deacons, as well. If there were mutual respect, then the state would abide by the Church’s rules and withhold divorces to Catholic couples until or if annulments were granted by ecclesial authority. But it is not going to happen. Indeed, the secular and religious definition of marriage daily becomes more divergent; we see this most clearly in the emergence of same-sex unions given the same legal gravity as bonds between men and women. Cardinal Kasper wants to give something of the importance rendered to valid unions to feigned marriages. His criteria are sufficiently vague; so much so that unqualified they would equally attempt to justify homosexual as well as heerosexual bonds. Applying the Cardinal’s categories: the gay person might be sorry about prior failed attempts at heterosexual union; view as impossible either celibacy or “living the lie” of a conventional bond; understand that abandoning the same-sex union would be painful and usher forth unbearable guilt and betrayal; seek to live the new bond with fidelity as they worship regularly as Catholics; and long to receive the sacraments and find acceptance. Would the Cardinal want his arguments stretched this far? The orthodox believer would argue that sex outside of a valid marriage is a sin. Further, our Lord tells us that marriage lasts until the death of a spouse. The Church defines marriage as an exclusive bond of unity and fidelity between a man and woman that is open to the generation of new human life.

Apologists for a change in discipline insist that we should redefine what is meant by adultery. I am doubtful that this is possible. The fact that those in irregular unions share tenderness for each other and display responsibility for children is indeed often quite true. But sin does not have to be utterly malicious. It can be subtle or even gentle. No one questions their capacity for love and compassion. However, does the good that one does for one eradicate the bad or the damage done to another?

As a bit of an aside, the movie and book SILENCE has a priest betray his faith so that the children and parishioners he loves might be spared torture and death. We understand as weak human beings what he does. However, we are also called to be saints. While we try to make a positive difference in this world, we set our sights on the coming kingdom. We are not promised perfect happiness in this world. There is no road to holiness that sidesteps the Cross. The priest in the story saved a few lives and his own, but did he cost them the faith and himself, his immortal soul? The Church would tell us that God sets the terms for salvation. Might the Church be on the precipice of betraying marriage just as a reputed change in Vatican policy to the Communists in China might betray the underground church? Do we really want this pontificate and time in the Church’s history to go down as the age when we surrendered to secular modernity? Returning to the subject of marriage and broken vows, are we not proposing that weakness and cowardice should be rewarded where we should be supporting courage and even martyrdom? I cannot mentally escape the story of Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher. We allowed an entire empire and earthly kingdom to separate from the Church over the matter of a divorce. As one Anglican critic recently said, if this discipline should change, then the Church of England finally wins.

Seeking to be a good priest, I would never do anything to deliberately hurt parishioners or to precipitate scandal. Pastors of souls must keep professional secrecy and the seal of confession. We might urge people in private to refrain from Holy Communion because of unresolved sins, but we would not seek to publicly embarrass and/or to berate them should they reject our guidance. Behind the scenes, many priests quietly work with couples in irregular unions so that they might apply for annulments and hopefully have their unions con-validated by the Church. There are also couples, often older, who live as brother and sister. They need to be together but they also respect the teaching of Christ and the demands of the Church. All this is wholly different from the attitude that couples in irregular unions might be publicly invited by their pastors to full participation in the sacramental life while remaining in a second or third civil marriage. Does the need for penance and the Eucharist trump the sacrament of matrimony? How can this be when the sacrament of marriage is intimately associated with the covenant of Christ and his relationship with the Church, his bride?

I have struggled to appreciate Cardinal Kasper’s reasoning. Nevertheless, it still befuddles me. He asserts that nothing has changed because even if we allow those in irregular unions to receive absolution in confession and to take Holy Communion, they still cannot contract a new “sacramental” marriage while the prior spouse is alive. It perplexes me to no end as to why he does not see the inner contradiction. The logic he employs utterly escapes me. He seems to be making a distinction between a one-time sacrament and those sacraments which are regularly received again and again. But marriage is a sacred covenant with one’s spouse in Christ that is renewed regularly with the marital act whereby the two become one flesh. Sexual intercourse with anyone other than the spouse signifies not the renewal or consummation of the covenant bond, but rather, its betrayal. How can one betray the covenant of Christ in bed and then receive the Eucharist which is the new covenant in Christ’s flesh and blood? How can one be absolved from sins when the mortal sin of adultery remains undisturbed at the very center of life?

It should also be added that while the focus is often necessarily upon the sexual dynamic of marriage and fidelity; sexual or genital expression does not exhaust all the intimacies and duties that come along with marriage. Divorce and remarriage (or cohabitation) signifies a violation of the whole package of the bond. They are called to share a common life, to give daily comfort and companionship, and to be helpmates in finding their salvation in the Lord. Married couples are called to be best friends. No matter what comes, they are supposed to stand together. All these elements are violated with infidelity and divorce. As the Church struggles to delineate the boundaries of accompaniment; I plead that we do not forget the true spouse. In many cases, he or she might have been innocent and desiring to fight to make the marriage work. But it takes two and what is one to do when the other walks away. Often they suffer alone in silence, praying and loving a spouse that seems to have forgotten them— who now takes comfort and pleasure in another’s arms. As a priest I have counseled many such people. Faithful to the Church and to their conscience that the bond was true (meaning forever) they one-sidedly keep their shredded promises and do not date. Offspring are also part of the larger picture. Children from an abandoned family are made aware that their father has started a new family. They wonder within their sorrow and tears, why does he love them more than us?

My pressing personal concern is beyond the temporal or pastoral and admittedly, is somewhat selfish. If I should invite those in irregular unions to take the Eucharist and/or to be absolved in the confessional; would I be compromising my own soul by enabling or condoning mortal sin? I can appreciate “accompaniment” but like the men on the road to Emmaus, I would like to see them turn around. I do not want to walk unashamedly with adulterers, even very cordial and pious ones, into the flames of perdition. Of course, it is possible that they might be saved by their ignorance of the truth; just as I might be condemned for my certainty about it. Wouldn’t that take the cake!

Filed under: Adultery, Confession, Eucharist, Marriage, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

Sexuality is Who You Are Not What You Do

Posted on February 20, 2018 by Father Joe

We are sexual beings. Even the celibate knows himself as either male or female. The word sex is often wrongly reduced to activity. It is actually expressive of our identity or who we are. It is for this reason that the U.S. Bishops went forward with the “Marriage Matters” campaign against so-called same sex marriage. Marriage is an exclusive bond between a man and a woman.

Reductionists perceive sexuality as an action and one that can be measured or judged. It sacrifices the element of mystery as a quality of a person’s inner being. It is also narrowed to consequences. Pregnancy and birth are inhibited as one would a disease. The prospect of a stable or singular relationship is often spurned in favor of momentary pleasure or a thill that might employ any number of sexual partners or none at all. People “have” sex instead of “being” their sex.

I recall a paperback fantasy story (the title escapes me) in which those cast in hell became more bestial. Everything and everyone became more eroticized in hell. Women became more endowed in breasts and curves. The men discovered that their genitals grew and they lost almost all self-control. One man tried to sneak into heaven but raced back to hell when he observed the gradual disappearance of his male sex organs. Despite these peculiar elements, the author tried to avoid the more grievous vulgarities in his composition so as to promote certain moral truths. While interesting fiction, I would contend that he got the situation basically wrong. We become more and not less of what we are with judgment in the afterlife; men and women in heaven will never stop being male or female. Joseph is still the foster “father” of Jesus and Mary will always be the blessed “mother” and the New Eve. There will be no concupiscence in heaven. There will be no marrying or giving in marriage— except for the marriage banquet of the Lamb. There will be perfect self-control. There will be unity in Christ. We will relate to one another as brothers and sisters, men and women— not as sexless drones.

While angels may be without gender, such is not the state of human beings. Male and female is how we are made and it is how we will be remade. God’s grace will perfect us but we will still be who and what we are. The divine economy will give us a share in immortality but God will not unmake our identity.

Frequently in these arguments, critics will point to St. Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “there is neither male nor female.” This does not mean that men and women are interchangeable or utterly the same. What it does say is that men and women alike are called by Christ to be disciples. We all have the capacity for faith and to benefit from the saving graces of baptism. I have engaged in past debates where critics used this passage to argue for women’s ordination. However, it does not apply to anything more than our universal priesthood in baptism. The tradition coming down from Christ and the apostles is that the ordained priesthood is reserved to men. Men are seen as living icons for Christ. They signify the divine bridegroom at the altar with the Church as his bride. A woman priest would suffer from the same critique as would same-sex marriages: the marriage analogy would be transformed into a lesbian caricature that could only feign priesthood. The true priesthood, the Mass and sacramental absolution would be lost. Gender is not an accidental element but a substantial quality of human identity.

Filed under: Marriage, Religion, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

An Over-sexed World Does Not Understand Sex

Posted on February 19, 2018 by Father Joe

151898139878378649 (2)

Analogies scratch at the surface of truth and reality. Nevertheless, they do allow a certain degree of illumination. We speak of heaven as an eternal banquet. We view the relationship of Christ to his Church as akin to the marital bond of a husband to his wife. Just as there can be no gluttony in heaven, neither can there be lust. The imperfections in human desires and activities can have no part to play in their eternal dimension. While we are broken, the moral life demands that we strive toward something of the perfection that awaits us. Food means physical life. Marriage means the life of children. Food gives satisfaction. Marriage brings the joy of marital union. God will sustain us and he will feed us with his very self. Ultimately, the measure of our unity is within the peace of Christ.

It may be that marriage finds itself in trouble within the modern world because people do not know what marriage and sex is really about. Failure to appreciate the truth damages relationships and makes the marriage analogy incomprehensible. There is confusion because many refuse to admit that they might be wrong. Just as certain virgins are anxious about telling others about their inexperience; those with active sex-lives may be reticent to admit that they are regularly engaged in something that they really do not understand. Persons are often reduced to a means to a selfish end. Sex is treated as recreation or as something to release tension. While it should be expressive of a bond, it should not be regarded as bondage. The abuse of sexual union leads to a whole assortment of ills. That which should draw people together and make possible personal integrity can inadvertently fragment personalities and cause rifts of infidelity and frustration. If one has a negative experience of sexual behavior, particularly when it is abusive, then how can he or she imagine that it is good, joyous and holy? There may be no sexual intercourse in heaven; however, this does not mean that such loving coupling cannot point to a profound intimacy between the divine and the communion of the saints.

Our culture is erotically saturated. Pornography has gone largely mainstream. Sex pollutes the media entertainments and advertising. Many people claim that they have to have it, giving impetus to a drug market where all sorts of dysfunction cures are prescribed. Nevertheless, while there is a focus on fantasy and the mechanics of human sexuality; there is a paucity of reflection upon ultimate meaning and the theology of the body. If human sexuality is reduced to an accidental then it might no longer matter… serial marriages, multiple partners, same-sex unions, fornication and even adultery are shifted to the periphery of social life with minimal moral importance. However, the traditional Western philosophical and religious critic would lament that this is all a lie. Human sexuality is not accidental and gender is not interchangeable. There must be a genuine complementarity, sufficient gravity in importance and a lasting permanence. Our gender identity is a core substantive element. The union of men and women is not between two half’s but rather two whole’s. It builds upon who they are, making them (together) something new.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Reflection, Religion, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

The Dark Secret

Posted on February 18, 2018 by Father Joe

What is the presumed dark truth that remains largely unspoken by the churchmen desiring a “paradigm shift” in reference to those in irregular unions being invited to receive the sacraments, i.e. the Eucharist and the penitential absolution?

151898139878378649 (1)

I suspect that despite objections to the contrary, they really do not believe that there is any lasting bond (sacramental, natural or spiritual) associated with the marriage of men and women. There was a priest I knew, died some years ago, who ridiculed the very notion that there was a lasting spiritual change in the spouses akin to the sacramental character imprinted upon the soul of men ordained to the priesthood. While I agreed that sacerdotal ordination was “forever” and that marriage was “until death do they part,” he spurned the notion of any real but invisible tie between spouses other than a psychological one. His view seemed to me as overly Anglican, as does the Orthodox compromise of penitential marriage. My thinking upon the question remains unchanged.

Marriage is a perpetual bond. Our Lord insists that it remains in effect as indissoluble as long as the spouses are alive. Further, while marriage ends at the threshold of this world and the next, we should all appreciate in Christ that love is stronger than death. There is something about the connection that changes spouses in an irrevocable way. They might marry again after a spouse dies; but a mysterious quality remains from the first union. Something changed with the bond that does not revert back to what it was before. Given that marriage is reflective of Christ’s relationship with his bride, the Church, this struck me as a necessary truth. Our Lord will never abandon or divorce his Church. Spouses give something to the beloved that is singular and that creates a union that is unique and unrepeatable. A second marriage may have its own value and particular traits; however, while not maligning a second chance at love, the first bond (if real, and in certain cases even when suspect) has a residual or lasting impact or impression. I am talking about more than mental memories; it is as if the body itself has its own remembrance. Further, what we do in the flesh has a powerful interplay with the human soul and identity.

Matthew 19:3-9:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

C. S. Lewis has this to say in Letter 18 of The Screwtape Letters:

The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh.” He did not say “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love,” but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh.” You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear, and desire which they call “being in love” is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because “being in love” does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemy’s designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly-colored and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Reflection, Religion, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

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 »