Marriage | Blogger Priest

Waiting on the HHS Mandate & the Church

Posted on July 12, 2013 by Father Joe

Statement of Archdiocese of Washington
in Response to the Finalization of the HHS Mandate

June 28, 2013 – After almost two years and over 400,000 public comments, the government today finalized the HHS mandate. We have begun to review the 110-page final rule to determine whether or not it addresses our longstanding concerns. Our review and analysis of the complex rule should help us answer important questions concerning who determines which institutions are religious and, therefore, exempt, who is forced to have this coverage, and who must provide it. The new regulations are being closely studied and a more comprehensive statement will follow at a later date.

Timothy Cardinal Dolan: “Although the Conference has not completed its analysis of the final rule, some basic elements of the final rule have already come into focus.” He said the U.S. Conference of Bishops “has not discovered any new change that eliminates the need to continue defending our rights in Congress and the courts.” He argues that the HH Mandate still threatens the Church’s ability “to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.”

A FEW PERSONAL COMMENTS

We are still waiting anxiously for the response of the U.S. Bishops to the latest accommodations in the HHS Mandate from the Obama administration. The deadline of August is rapidly coming upon us and what happens next could be devastating to our hospitals, schools and charity works. It troubles me that the Catholic Health Association acts unilaterally without regard to the decisions of the USCCB. The latest version of the mandate exemption is being studied by our shepherds and yet the CHA has already come out in support of the measure. This is not new given that they supported it even when the bishops did not a year ago. I am just a poor priest, but my reading of the mandate makes me think that this latest revision is merely another round of the shell game we suffered before. There is still nothing on the table for commercial operations that have a mission paralleling the Church’s. Individual Catholics and those having businesses must participate. There is the plight of notable Catholic organizations like EWTN and the Knights of Columbus. The administration staunchly insists that employees MUST have free birth control pills and coverage for abortifacients and sterilization. When it comes to the question as to who will pay, the government is creative but consistent: whoever pays, it will NEVER be the person who wants sex but not pregnancy. The administration will officially redefine the meaning of the marital act, bloodying the hands of all with the sacrifice of innocent children. Saying that we will not have “to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage” is a legal fiction.

Distinctions are being made that are somewhat hard to follow. First, there is FULL EXEMPTION from the contraceptive mandate. This is in regard to Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” Second, there is the NON-EXEMPTION in reference to non-profit faith-based groups not directly affiliated with the Church, such as certain hospitals, schools and charities. These groups are being offered an “accommodation.” Third, there is NON-EXEMPTION with no accommodation. This would include large apologetic efforts, television, radio stations, and even small operations like a privately own Catholic gift shop. This group would be treated as any secular operation and would have to fully comply with the mandate.

It is thrown into the faces of the bishops that most Catholic women have used or are using artificial contraception. In other words, the administration is saying that Catholic women are more in sync with President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius than with their bishops. How can the bishops then speak on their behalf? The bishops counter that even if all lay Catholics dissented, they would still be obliged to uphold Christian faith and morals. The Affordable Care Act will deliver contraceptive services, including those prescribed by a medical provider, “without charging cost sharing, like a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible.” Organizations like Planned Parenthood must view this as the ultimate anti-Christmas; instead of a special birth, they will celebrate the avoidance of birth with a fortune in free-bees. Of course, nothing is really free. Someone always pays. Already the agenda of the HHS on behalf of so-called reproductive or preventative services, as well as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered health issues, is costing the American tax-payer billions of dollars. The 2013 HHS budget is $80.1 billion!

The HHS has not budged an inch. It is dedicated to the promulgation of free contraceptive services without cost-sharing while posturing that concessions have been made to non-profit religious organizations. But saying it does not make entirely it so. Even if it were completely true and reserved to non-profits, it would demand that those who operate for-profit religious operations must forfeit their religious liberty and rights of conscience. That is a dangerous and despicable double or even triple-standard. Churches are fully exempt, other non-profit religious organizations have an accommodation and for-profit companies (even religious ones) have no protection at all. The Church should speak out for her rights and for those of others, both organizations and individuals. Concessions from tyrants when others suffer, as we have seen in Latin and Central America, can taint the witness of the Church and make us bedfellows with the oppressor.

In any case, reserving ourselves to religious non-profits, we are told that churches that object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds would “not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage for their employees or students.” This sounds good. Similarly, we are told that the definition of a religious employer no longer insists upon the following details: (1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) Primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and (3) Primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets. This seems to answer many of the concerns of Cardinal Dolan and Wuerl. But wait a minute, then are the contraceptive services still available and who pays? Is this administration really going to sit back and allow a large number of Church employees to go without contraceptive coverage? I suspect that soon after the mandate takes effect, select people who work for the Church in various capacities will come forward in a staged manner to demand the “same rights” that are given other Americans. The convoluted and unclear language will be exploited and the Church will be further painted as anti-woman and anti-choice.

When speaking about non-exempt non-profit religious organizations, we are told: “Under an accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, separate payments for contraceptive services are available for women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization.” Who makes these separate payments? Is it the insurance carrier itself? These self-certified groups must notify the health insurance issuer and these plans “must then provide separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. As explained in the final rules, issuers will find that providing such payments is cost-neutral.” Cost neutral, are they serious? If such were really the case then we could have all insurance carriers supply contraceptives with no business, government and employee co-pay. But it is not true. Insurance companies are already starting to complain. In any case, some religious non-profits are self-insured. This issue remains unsettled. What insurance carrier is going to come forward and just take upon itself the financial burden of contraceptives without other more traditional coverage and money from health plans? It makes absolutely no business sense!

Money from the religious employer and payments from the employees fund the various health insurance plans. It goes into a single pot. There is a string of probable culpability: money is passed from the Church employer (matched by the employee) to the insurance carrier to the supplier of the offensive services. I suspect that churchmen are arguing about the question of remote culpability. However, this still seems very immediate to me. Even if the funds come only from the employee’s matching contribution— that money originated with the salary/benefits of the employer. Does government expect insurance carriers to come forward and to offer such services without payment or contract selection from the non-profit religious organization? I doubt that will happen. Compliance is literally getting someone else to do the dirty work for us. Cardinal Dolan sees the problem when he states that the revision “seems intended to strengthen the claim that objectionable items will not ultimately be paid for by the employer’s premium dollars,” and yet it remains “unclear whether the proposal succeeds in identifying a source of funds that is genuinely separate from the objecting employer, and if so, whether it is workable to draw from that separate source.” If there is only one plan, then nothing has changed: the religious employer will be funding abortion inducing drugs and contraception. Groups that think this is acceptable are guilty of muddled thinking. Segregating the funds in the books is merely an accounting trick. The moral problem remains.

Self-insured operations will have a “third party administrator” to “provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement.” Okay, we are back to the days of “voodoo economics.” It is argued that no reimbursement is necessary because the decreased pregnancy and birthing expenses will offset the benefits from contraception. Contraceptives may be cheap and yet when that gal from Georgetown paraded her fake $300 plus dollars a month bill for contraception, the administration was cheerleading how expensive it was! They want it both ways and I doubt “for-profit” insurance companies are going to give away anything for free. The money will be moved around, but someone else is going to pay for it. It might be called “administrative fees” or some other euphemism, but it will still be money trading hands for immoral services. Back in 2012, a national survey of pharmacists found that most thought this idea was ridiculous and would not work. The government is going to take fees (a tax) from the insurance issuer which it will return to pay for the contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. They are going to pay them with their own money! Congratulations to the Obama administration, it has invented the perpetual motion machine! But wait a minute, it never worked before, why will it work now? Making payments to one insurance carrier and pretending that magical money will come down from another to pay for the objectionable coverage is ridiculous. It is utterly detached from reality.

Further, who pays the third party administrator who acquires outside coverage? Does that not make him or her part of the religious operation? Is this person not operating for the religious entity or in the Church’s name? The problem of self-insured entities is not cleanly resolved by the change in the mandate. If the insurance agent pays out, even if selected by a third party, is the religious employer still guilty of enabling immoral services?

While not necessarily under the direct supervision of a bishop or religious order, the non-exempt non-profit organizations are an integral element of the Church. The formal dedication of a “third party” administrator to handle the claims for contraception is still a bad solution. It is like someone hiring a hit man and saying, “Take care of the problem but spare me the details. If you are caught, I will deny even knowing you.” We would be hiring someone to sin on our behalf, to maintain clean consciences.

The Church cannot preach and teach one message from the pulpit and in our schools and then do the opposite on such an important matter. Such hypocrisy would bring down any such house of cards. I suspect that some in the government administration precisely want this to come about. They have tried one tactic and now here is another. Throughout there has been one common thread: the redefinition of the Church. The administration wants to redefine the Church as something akin to HHS itself. It wants to compromise our voice and moral witness, converting us to the cause of a secular humanistic modernity. Already, the administration is counting on the fact that most Catholics currently regard the Church as outdated and out-of-touch. This is a test after many years of moral and political passivity.

Speaking about the multiple standards of full exemption, an accommodation and no protection at all, Cardinal Dolan said that the bishops “are concerned as pastors with the freedom of the Church as a whole – not just for the full range of its institutional forms, but also for the faithful in their daily lives – to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.” We are still dealing with the very definition of what constitutes the Church. The Church is not merely a house of worship or our hospitals, schools and affiliated charities. Most of the Church consists of the laity. They are the main ones who seek to evangelize and live out their Christian discipleship in the world. The Pharisees in Christ’s time took for granted that they could satisfy the demands of the Law while the average believer because of the demands of the state and his need for bread could not. Bishops and priests would share the same posture if they preached something that they knew that the government would not allow our Catholic “business” men and women to live out. The laity are also part of the Church, and the largest part at that.

The administration will not allow employees to opt-out of the program. The CHA does not seem to understand this fact. Maybe they do not want to admit it? However, even if such were permitted, it bypasses an important objection, that such a “reproductive choice” is offensive in itself and we do not want it covered for any employee, the spouse or teenaged children. You can say that you “opt-out” but can change your mind at any time. There is one plan and it still includes the offensive services. This opens up several frightful possibilities. Even if the employee is a faithful Catholic, his or her family covered by the family plan remains eligible for the immoral services. With or without parental consent, the employee’s daughters could get free abortion pills or get sterilized under the new plan. I suspect schools will now be able to pass the condom costs, with the addition of birth control pills, to the insurance providers of parents or guardians.

Everything about this provision in the mandate speaks to our hedonistic culture of death. If we really cared about women and families, the emphasis would be upon prenatal care and helping parents with the rising costs of child delivery and health. But it is deemed cheaper to kill children in the womb. Ours is a world that worships the barren womb and medicates against the child as if the baby were a disease. The administration would have people mutilate themselves and take poison to murder the unborn. Instead of rewarding sacrifice and genuine responsibility, we enable selfishness and moral degeneracy.

There has been much talk about the rights and choices of women under the HHS Mandate. Less discussed is the fact that it covers men as well. Male contraceptives are not as readily available, given trust issues, but the word is that more are coming. Further, there is the issue of men having vasectomies. This whole topic just gets more complicated and serious with scrutiny.

The only really good solution would be for the Obama administration to scrap the provision for what they call “preventative” services. If people wanted they could shop around and get coverage in private plans; I suppose the government could subsidize these. Unfortunately, that would mean that tax dollars would continue to be used for offensive services. As soon as morality clauses in religious-based contracts were enforced with firings over revealed abortifacient use or involvement in condom campaigns, I am sure we would be back in the courts. While we do not and cannot police the lives of people who work for us; nevertheless, they parade their sins on Facebook. Returning to the matter at hand, real exemption means that the bishops and Church organizations should have no involvement whatsoever with insurance bookkeeping gimmicks or third party administrators. But the government has a decadent culture on its side and will not bend. Strangely, even some religious people who disagree with the Church on contraception also feel that this is an important religious liberty battle. I have heard the elderly complain that there is not enough money for their life-saving prescriptions; they wonder, how then can the government find money to give compromised women free birth control pills! They cannot believe it. Admittedly, it is quite bizarre. The administration does not even want co-pay with the delivered contraceptives and abortifacients, something one must still do for blood pressure and heart medicine. This illustrates the moral sickness and sex-on-the-brain attitude of the HHS and this administration.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 3 Comments »

The Marriage Crisis: A Few Personal Suggestions

Posted on July 1, 2013 by Father Joe

How might we handle the marriage crisis in the Church? Here are a few of my suggestions:

1. There should be a Pre-Cana preparation program that parallels RCIA instructions. Couples can meet weekly in their parishes with a team that will help them to appreciate the sacrament, the moral obligations, and how this union fits into their Christian discipleship (openness to human life, avoidance of pornography, etc.).

2. Couples without children that are cohabitating should be urged to separate during the time of preparation prior to the wedding. If there are children or this is just not practical, then they should be urged to live as brother and sister until the marriage.

3. Couples that continue to cohabitate and/or have attempted marriage before a civil magistrate or non-Catholic minister still have the natural right to marriage; however, the scandal they have caused should not be amplified by a full-blown church-wedding. Convalidations or ceremonies for such couples might be very small, without rehearsal, with no less than two witnesses and no more than perhaps a dozen people. There should be no flowers, no music, no fancy dresses and no reception on parish property. There would be the reading of Scripture, a brief homily, the exchange of vows, the bidding prayers and the closing blessings. The service should take no more than 30 minutes.

4. The nuptial Mass is properly reserved to Catholic couples who are faithful to each other and to the Church, honestly struggling to be chaste and participating in the pre-marital preparation. A wedding without the Mass can be celebrated for a faithful Catholic marrying a non-Catholic who respects the spouse’s faith and has agreed to have the children raised as Catholics. These couples would also be eligible for parish receptions.

5. The dress for the bridal party and the bride should be feminine and beautiful, but not skimpy and erotic. Bosoms should have ample coverage and legs should not be excessively exposed.

6. Music for the liturgical celebration must be exclusively religious. Popular and/or romantic songs should be saved for the reception. There should be an air of gravity, not flippancy at the wedding. Exaggerated walking, dancing down the aisle and props like fake noses or full costumes are best avoided.

7. Receptions for Catholic weddings should include nothing that is profane in language, music, dance or actions. The practice of extracting the bride’s garter should be forbidden as lewd and undermining to the woman’s dignity. Her body belongs to her husband and is not the object for leering and jokes from male guests.

8. It should be understood that bachelor parties and parties for the bride with the girls must be sober and pure. Strippers and pornographic videos are no way for couples to spiritually prepare for marriage. Like the knights of old, the night before their great journey and life together should be spent in prayer and reflection.

I know, a few of you are shaking your heads, and mumbling, “That Father Jenkins is crazy!”

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | 2 Comments »

The Marriage Crisis

Posted on June 29, 2013 by Father Joe

I regularly follow the wisdom on Msgr. Charlie Pope’s blog for the Archdiocese of Washington. Recently, he posted on the following question: “In the wake of the Supreme Court decisions of this week, are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?” A number of Catholic voices are arguing that we should disengage ourselves both with the word “marriage” and from allowing clergy to function as civil magistrates in witnessing them for the state. Certainly I am sympathetic with what they hope to accomplish. However, I am already on the record, from past discussions, as opposed to such a retreat. Both sides can play word-games. Towards the end, he poses a second question, “Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil ‘marriage’ licenses?” Again, I appreciate the underlying reasoning; we want to avoid guilt by association and giving apparent approbation. My fear is that any such move would be contrary to a well-ordered or structured society (which is a good in itself). It would also constitute a retreat that opponents in the public forum would exploit. It seems to me that our laity would bear the blunt of the suffering and challenge that would come from such a move.

I am not blind to the dire crisis we face. It is true that marriage as an institution has been largely redefined by our society. The movement on behalf of same-sex unions is a case in point; of course, if left unchecked it will not stop there. Next we will see the return of polygamy. Despite the many scandals faced by the Church, there are even depraved people pushing for pedophilia and pederasty. There is already a bizarre effort in Australia for a man to marry his pet goat, the degradation of bestiality. The U.S. bishops reminded us in their failed initiative that marriage is in trouble. While I am hesitant to criticize our holy shepherds; the fact is that marriage has been in trouble for some time now and we were largely silent. Contraception nullifies the consummation of the marital act. Millions of abortions seek to erase through murder the fruit of marital love. No-fault divorce allows for quick separations and remarriages. Prenuptial Agreements insert doubt against the vows and a lack of trust from the very beginning, thus making those marriages null-and–void. Couples fornicate and cohabitate, essentially saying that you do not have to be married to have sex. Well, when you separate sex and marriage, you also set the stage for infidelity and adultery. Once sex is disconnected from marriage it is very hard to reattach it with any kind of necessity. Our society is saturated by an erotic and pornographic media that destroys courtship and sexualizes relationships. This dilemma is so pervasive that the inner person has lost any sense of propriety or decency. Viagra gives the old stamina to neglect their coming judgment and condoms give the young license under the illusion of protection. Wedding dresses that once expressed modesty and femininity are increasing replaced with skimpy gowns akin to those on television dance contests. Ours is the generation where all rights, even the right to life, are supplanted by the emerging and absolute right to have sex with anyone regardless of promises and unions. The children are caught up in the middle of this whirlwind. This is so much so that we even dress our little girls like the prostitutes that walk the street.

Much Ado about a Word

Msgr. Pope makes the accurate observation that the Church and society-at-large mean very different things by the word, “marriage.” Of course, this is also the situation with many other terms as well. While language is fluid and hard to control; it can certainly be manipulated. Look at the word GAY. This expression for joy or happiness has become the source for giggling when used in old songs. It has now been exclusively usurped by the homosexual community. Another word in peril is RELATIONSHIP. When we hear teens or young adults use it these days, they generally mean a sexual friendship with a certain degree of exclusivity. The word that most troubles and saddens me today is LOVE. What precisely does it mean anymore? We do not want to cast it off and so the dictionary definition gets longer and longer. Look at how we use it. “I love my car. I love my dog. I love my job. I love my house. I love donuts. I love strippers. I love my wife. I love my children. I love God.” Then we have expressions like, “Let’s make love,” a euphemism for sex. We give it so many meanings that the word begins to mean nothing.

What does the word MARRIAGE mean? Is it just a civil contract to make having sex easier or more convenient? If that is all it is, it is no wonder that couples are cohabitating without it. Some states have argued for different types of marriage contracts, one more easily dissolved than the other. There was even an effort to impose marriage licenses with term limits. If after five years, if the spouses were unhappy, they could opt not to renew. The marriages would then automatically expire. The divorce epidemic, something which Protestant churches pamper by their failure to enforce Christ’s command in Matthew against divorce, has given us what is essentially serial or progressive polygamy, one spouse after another. Proponents of “open” marriages suggest that couples should still be able to have sex with others outside their bond. I know one instance where a man lives with both his wife and his mistress in the same house. The girls share him. Largely gone is the Catholic-Christian equation that marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman who are called to be faithful to each other until the death of one of the spouses. Marriages are rightly directed toward the good of the spouses and the generation of new human beings, children. Stripping marriage of its propagative element is to make marriage wholly something else. Even infertile couples must express their union in that act which by nature is directed to the generation of new human life. That is why something like condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil, even in marriage, yes, even among older infertile couples. Too many couples feign the marital act and live in relationships that are not true marriages. The large cases of annulments are cases in point. People can share their bodies like cats and dogs but they are ignorant of the true parameters of marital love and union. Although a natural right, they have made themselves ill-disposed to the sacrament. Required six-month waiting periods and marriage preparation are attempts to remedy the dark situation. However, couples frequently go through the motions and tell the moderators and clergy what they want to hear. I recall one priest praising a couple he was working with for doing all the right things before marriage. On the way out one evening, I overheard the prospective groom tell his girl, “What a jerk!” Later I found out from parishioners that they had been cohabitating the whole time and only went to the priest’s Masses once-in-a-while to fool him about their religiosity. They spent a fortune on the wedding and we never saw them again. I heard a few years later they divorced because “they grew apart.” When Catholics marry outside the Church, in the eyes of God they do not get married at all. However, Catholics who marry in the Church might also start their unions with deception. Planting lies today often leads to weeds tomorrow.

I will echo Msgr. Pope in giving the definition of MARRIAGE from the universal catechism:

[CCC 1601] The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

What are we to do when the definition given to marriage in no way parallel’s the understanding of the Church?

Msgr. Pope proposes that we stop using the word “marriage” and substitute instead, “holy matrimony.” He explains:

“The word ‘matrimony’ also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = ‘mother’ and ‘mony,’ a suffix indicating ‘action, state, or condition.’ Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has ‘marriage’ for its nomen.”

He readily admits that there are problems with trying to regulate language in such ways. If I recall correctly, I was among those unconvinced and “perturbed that we were handing over our vocabulary to the libertines.”

We can play word games but our opponents are not fools. They were not happy with the notion of “civil unions” and wanted “marriage.” Don’t be surprised that they will also be speaking of their bonds in terms of “holy matrimony.”

Marriage is a natural right. Opting to use another word is not going to change this fact. Homosexuals and lesbians can feign marriage and the state might recognize it; but, in truth such unions are a violation of the natural law. The debate or argument is best sustained by retention of the vocabulary. We must insist that same-sex marriage is a fiction. Surrendering the word would only grant them the false sense that they had succeeded in making their argument.

If we cannot even defend a word like “marriage,” then how can we defend all the ideas behind it? This conflict is not just about marriage; it is a fight over the hearts and minds of people. So-called same sex-marriage is just one weapon in the enemy’s arsenal. The goal of our critics is to redefine the Church out of existence. The government administration wants to become the sole arbiter of marriage; but more than this— it views Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, and Catholic hospitals as standing in its way. Threats to close would only make them nationalize these institutions and they would argue that such is a “necessity” for “the public good.” This is the goal of our antagonists. If American society is to be remade then the Church must either change to insignificance or be destroyed. This is the fight we face.

Ministers of the State or of the Church

My initial sentiments emerged as an aside to the courageous crusade of Bai Macfarlane against No-Fault Divorce. The question arose as to whether clergy compromised themselves by acting as witnesses for the state, signing the marriage licenses and returning them to the courts. Msgr. Pope continues to sign them, he says, out of holy obedience to the Archbishop. Speaking for myself, I think we would forfeit too much by surrendering this privilege to the state. I suspect that problems might escalate instead of get better. Further, if the Church should opt out, would not our couples still have to get their civil licenses before Church weddings? He seems to think not, arguing that they should “in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.” I recall arguing with a hippie years ago who regarded the marriage license as just a piece of paper. In response, I cited that it came along with the Church sacrament and that it also respected the state’s right to regulate marriages as an integral building block to society. The state is taking a wrong turn with these same sex unions but we should still take advantage of our rights as citizens. That piece of paper says that as a member of society, I still have a voice and that marriage is an institution that must be acknowledged, regardless as to whether others are given such acknowledgment wrongly (in the past because of divorce and today also because of same-sex unions). Opting out will undermine a structured society, its institutions, and the protections and rights we take for granted.

I have immigrants in my parish from Asia and Africa. Their home nations do not give the privilege that our clergy enjoy in being able to witness marriages. Some of them have only known tribal weddings. Others have licenses from a judge or notary public. While they should have immediately had their marriages solemnized by a priest, they put the process off. Children were conceived. Time went by, maybe years, and now they all need Church convalidations. Would we reduce all marriages in the Church to convalidations?

If we attempt to marry people in Church who are not legally married; we will be facing all sorts of headaches. We would be opening the door to rampant bigamy where people would be civilly married to one person and married in the Church to another— without the recourse to the legal fiction of divorce. At present the state recognizes all Church unions even though the Church does not acknowledge every civil union. The last thing we should want is to segregate the Church into her own private ghetto where there are “us” and “them.” We have every right to a place in the public forum and should fight for it. Our married couples have every right to the protections insured by law (tax incentives, inheriting property, healthcare and insurance, custodial issues with offspring, hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse, and sharing a name). Marrying couples without civil licenses would once have opened our couples to prosecution for cohabitation. Even if this is a bygone concern, there is still the prospect of scandal. Some will view “married in the Church” but “not in the state” as NOT being married at all. The children from such unions could be labeled as “bastards” by our critics.

The Church has a responsibility to be fully integrated into civil society as a constitutive part. There will be conflicts but accommodations will have to be made that will not compromise our message and mission. Maybe there is a need for different types of licenses from the state for religious weddings, distinguishing them from civil ones? Indeed, there are different theologies between the churches. Some view the clergy person as the one who performs the marriage. Catholics view the spouses as the ministers of the sacrament to which the priest witnesses. Episcopalians and others will probably even allow and celebrate same-sex unions. We may become a minority voice in this society but we should not allow that voice to be silenced. Taking our toys and going home angry will not fix the situation. The retreat of the Church would be precisely what our enemies want. I fear that it would further erode the foundations of our civilization. Caesar’s empire might be pagan, but the Christian and the Church still have obligations to maintain a society that would protect our rights and freedoms.

I would maintain the status-quo with priests witnessing marriages for the state. However, there may come a day when that is taken away from us. We can cope with that when it comes. Civil disobedience might then take many forms, some of which could be extremely bizarre. One priest suggested that all our religious houses claim same-sex unions so as to get the marriage benefits and healthcare. I know one case already where a married couple got divorced but still live together so as to have better retirement benefits. I suspect that laws will be passed to force couples and the Church to behave. How far do we want to press it? Speaking for myself, I really hate retreating.

The Larger Challenge

It is my hope that we will have courageous shepherds and a supportive flock. I foresee priests facing fines and jail time for hate-speech in regard to teaching and preaching against homosexuality. After all, the Church’s language about marriage in the recent Supreme Court case was appraised as bigotry. Hum, we might have to take priests entirely out of the marriage scenario if all our clergy are locked up. Already, while the Church is currently protected, and we cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, organizations like the Knights of Columbus are not safeguarded. At this writing the free-standing Knights of Columbus halls in Maryland have been notified that due to their state charters they must rent for the wedding receptions of homosexuals and lesbians. The pressure is already on.

Our public schools are teaching that any reservation about homosexuality is discrimination. What will our children then think of their churches? Must we extract all our children from the public schools? Who will pay to place them into Catholic institutions? Homeschooling is an option for some but not for all. Where are we going from here? If the government and the media are more successful than the Church in forming consciences and teaching values; then what avenues are left? The issue is far more complex than any nomenclature of marriage or whether priests are authorized as civil magistrates. The question is how does the Church function and survive in a non-Christian society?

Catholics did not unanimously support the U.S. bishops in the Marriage Matters campaign. Indeed, large numbers were vocal in opposition. We hesitate to name names and are always fearful of our tax-exemption status. But if we are going to be shunned in a matter similar to racists over the issue of homosexual acceptance; then we will no doubt forfeit such benefits in the days ahead. I know I sound pessimistic and cynical. But that is what I see coming. The Church waited too long to find her teeth. She is an old dog grown weak from inactivity and abandoned by her pups. There are wolves coming. They want the Church out of the way. Look at the various initiatives of the current administration. Starting with appointments in religious churches and schools, then forcing churches to violate their basic principles and next pressing upon us what was once an unthinkable depravity— all these are attempts to redefine the Church out of existence. The president’s view of religion is seen through the prism of secular humanism. Anything else is judged as extraneous and must go.

There are some who are pawns to those who hate the Church. Others actually think that they are catalysts for positive change in the Church and society. Look at all the Catholic politicians who oppose the U.S. bishops and who dissent on Church teaching. The chief advocates in Maryland and in Washington are baptized Catholics. Like Msgr. Pope, I have my opinions; and like him, in obedience we both defer to the Archbishop and the national shepherds of our Church. We share our ideas, pray for courage and know that God will not abandon his children.

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Atheism, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Contraception, Divorce, Family, Fortnight for Freedom, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sacraments, Schools, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Another Upset Woman About Married Priests, WHY?

Posted on March 24, 2013 by Father Joe

CATHY: It is impossible to make such assumption that having a wife and children would be distraction to priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope when they were never allowed to have a family in the first place and many have fooled around anyway. To make people choose against a holy sacrament of marriage is to break the first commandment in the bible which is to be fruitful and multiply. You would take away some of the supposed scandal from the church if you would allow for men and women (nuns) to serve and be married. How can ministers of the word even begin to identify with parishoners if they have not lived through some of their circumstances especially since ministry begins in the home. Sex is not vile if done within marriage. It is a God sanctioned act. This not being married is a man sanctioned decree. Every prophet and most of the apostles including St. Peter were married. Their trials were due to the times they were living in. Now, unless you are living in pagan or atheist parts of the world, no one is trying to burn or stone you for being Catholic.

FATHER JOE:

You assert several serious falsehoods:

First, the Church in the West once had a married clergy and determined that celibate clergy best served the Lord and the Church. In other words, we have “been there and done that.”

Second, most Catholic ministers are faithful to their promises and do not “fool around” as you put it. You malign me and many good priests. How dare you do this?

Third, the command in Genesis is given to the species, not to every individual. Otherwise, you would have to force people to get married and mandate that all fertile females get pregnant. Such would be absolutely silly. Our Lord did not get married and neither did St. Paul. Deacons represent both married and unmarried clergy in the Catholic Church. Most priests and all bishops are celibate. We did not “choose against marriage” but rather “chose a spiritual marriage to Christ’s Church.” You minimize the sacrifice and the value of such single-hearted love. You should be ashamed of yourself for that.

Fourth, please, do not be silly; sick and unfaithful people are still sick and unfaithful if they are married. A majority of men who left priesthood for marriage subsequently divorced. Protestant churches may not have their dirty laundry paraded on the news, but they have their own scandals with married clergy. A Methodist minister and friend of mine had a large and vibrant church in Washington, DC. He had an affair with a lady in the choir and got himself fired and defrocked. A married clergy would only amplify the possibility of scandal, albeit with divorce, abuse, incest, etc. There is nothing unnatural or wrong with celibacy. The answer to our problems is not a married priesthood. Allowing nuns to marry violates the very nature of their calling.

Fifth, the family may be the little Church but there is no requirement that every man be an ordained priest. Priests deal with many families. There is marriage preparation, counseling, and confession. We see and hear it all. We know the plight of our people. Our celibacy makes us available to them. We might not have our own wives and families, but we belong to our many parish families. Priests are not fools.

Sixth, a celibate priesthood is no condemnation of human sexuality and marriage. Do you know nothing about Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body? The marital act must remain within marriage as the consummation and renewal of the marital covenant. But there is no requirement that we collect as many sacraments as possible. Most men will never be priests. Most Western priests will never be married. I will never have a child. But few men can stand at the altar and make Christ present with the words of consecration. The Priesthood with Mass and Confession are enough for me.

Seventh, celibacy is a discipline of the Church. But our Lord gave such authority to his Church and it is not for you or me to impugn or spurn it. The Church has the mind of Christ in this matter.

Eighth, the Jewish and Christian view of marriage was not the same. Jews tended to see God’s blessings in progeny, wealth and land. Christians are urged to embrace a poverty of spirit. It is in this light that St. Paul recommends celibacy as the better way. You would be hard-pressed to show a married background for all the prophets. St. Paul and certain others were not married. There is evidence that the early Church had a preference for perfect continence on the part of married men who became priests. Strict celibacy would relieve the tension caused by such a situation.

Nine, while I not entirely sure how this fits into the debate about priesthood and marriage, we are facing terrible trials today, too. I have parishioners with family members suffering violence and death in Asia and Africa. Churches are being bombed and Christians are being martyred. The news here at home is filled with daily assaults upon the Church and our religious liberty. Indeed, the government is seeking to shut us down or compromise our moral message. Sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about. Not having a wife and family might free a priest from fears of retaliation against them or intimidation through them. Men often feel that they must make compromises to secure their families. Are you married Cathy? Does your husband agree with you about mandating married priests?

Cathy, you really know very little about men as priests or what matters to us. We have men and women friends but we save our intimacy for God. Marriage is a wonderful thing, but so is celibate love. Do you find that hard to believe? We do not need to be married. We do not want to be married. We are happy. Why is it that people like yourself want to mess with our lives? If a man is called to holy orders then God will give him the graces for this state of life.

Peace!

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Marriage, Priests | 6 Comments »

Courageous Words from a Montgomery County Pastor

Posted on January 14, 2013 by Father Joe

When the vote was over, despite all the work of the Maryland Catholic Conference and our own Archdiocese of Washington, the same-sex marriage initiative passed. The day after, when analysts were looking at the numbers, it was noted that Prince Georges County had voted against the measure by a razer thin margin. No doubt while there were many Obama supporters, this was also the church mecca of the state, a county with a 93% minority population. The more affluent Montgomery County voted for the measure, almost two to one. Msgr. Filardi is a Montgomey County pastor. Here is his message:

WELCOME TO SODOM

Pastor’s Letter
Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Bethesda, Maryland

Welcome to Sodom. Yes, that is what Maryland has now become. Sodom with its neighbor Gomorrah was a city of antiquity whose disregard for the natural law of human love led to its destruction. That same disregard is now written into state law. The distinctive physical and life-cultivating complimentarity of woman and man has been dismissed as a basis for marriage. Additionally, those who cannot honor this diluted definition in their personal and business activities will be held legally liable for discrimination and punished accordingly.

Already, the owner of a trolley service in Annapolis seeing this coming announced he will no longer offer wedding services. By doing so he will lose much of his business, but he cannot in good faith go along with treating as normal what is not, neither can we.

It is a great sadness that many of Satan’s helpers in ushering in this demonic distortion of marriage were Catholics, such as our governor. In promoting this desecration they have not only brought dishonor to our holy faith and shame to all Catholics, but invite the real possibility of damnation on themselves. We must pray that they recognize this error, repent and make reparation.

Some may interpret my words as an unfair disregard for individuals who bear same-gender attraction. It is not. Such brothers and sister must be loved and embraced. Indeed, we must make greater efforts of proper inclusion and support. At the same time true love is not allowance for any activity. It has no authority to overlook what is written in nature. Love cannot comply with a lie. It first honors what God has designed, and then encourages all to live in authentic love that leads to true fulfillment. Nothing changes for us, because God defines marriage. This has not changed. The purposeful union of man and woman was the crown of God’s creation. Anything else by that name mocks what God has created, and therefore mocks God.

Maryland is our home. It is where we are placed, and it is where we will continue to live. But especially now we must live upholding in word and honor the truth of marriage with clarity. We cannot betray what God has created without betraying God. This means never placating or playing along with a false notion, no matter how “well intention” some may be. It will not be easy. We do so at the risk of the ire and even legal sanctions this will invoke.

Our beloved state is now a modern-day Sodom. We should not be surprised at the coming of confusion, conflict, and even catastrophe. We reap what we sow. May God have mercy on us.

Msgr. Edward J. Filardi
Pastor, Our Lady of Lourdes Parish
Bethesda, Maryland

Catholic Bandita / Courageous Priest / Parish Bulletin / A Culture of Life / Father Z’s Blog / Deacon for Life

Filed under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, News, Sexuality, Sin | 10 Comments »

Should Priests Be Able to Witness (CIVIL) LEGAL Marriages?

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Father Joe

The CORPSE BRIDE promotion really has nothing to do with this article, although the film did remind viewers about sacrifice and “until death do we part,” albeit in a morbid way.

The post is an OPINION piece for me, and maybe I am wrong, but here are my two cents worth.

I recently read an article where a renown and orthodox philosophy professor argued that Catholic priests should not perform marriages as civil officials of the state. Right now in the United States, a wedding witnessed by a priest is both recognized by the Church and by the civil authorities. The couple must have a license and the priest signs it after the service, giving the couple their segment, keeping a copy for Church records, and sending the third page back to the courthouse for formal registration. The professor argues that given the disparity in how the State and the Church defines marriage, the priest taints himself and undermines the sacrament.

Obviously, the divorce culture has compromised the notion of marriage, and the absurdity of homosexual marriages has definitely complicated matters; however, should the Church isolate herself as an ideological, cultural and civic ghetto or safehaven?
Would this not surrender the public institution of marriage to secular humanists and hedonists?
Would we forfeit our right to enter into the national debate on marriage?

The priviledge of a priest witnessing legal marriages is not just a sign of overcoming past prejudices, but remains a steadfast witness that legal marriages reflect the natural law and that couples are called to holiness and fidelity. The priest and the Church offer preparation classes on marriage, the state does not. There is also a safeguard in the two-tiered program in that State and Church records help to confirm the freedom of people to marry.

The good doctor says that Catholic priests should witness sacramental marriages only. He adds that if the newlyweds want to get a civil law marriage certificate as well, that is left to them.

Does a priest really compromise his office by witnessing marriages that are recognized both by the State and the Church?
Given that such a statement were true, would this not mean that “every” priest and bishop would be compromised and guilty of serious sin?
If we permitted sacramental weddings that were not licensed by the state, would we not endanger the permanence of marriage further?
Would our married people be stamped with the stigma of cohabitation and lewd conduct in the eyes of non-Catholic believers and secular persons with high morals?
Since the state would not recognize such marriages, and common law marriages are no longer recognized in most places, could not such couples easily separate (even more so than with No-Fault Divorce) with little if any civil recourse?

Some countries require two ceremonies, a civil one before a judge or notary public and a ceremony before a priest and two witnesses. This is a possible eventuality, although it increases the likelihood that some couples would dispense with the Church service entirely. If the couple attempted to consummate the civil contract before engaging in the marital covenant, then they would commit mortal sin. Every such marriage would become a convalidation. Giving the Catholic minister the faculties to perform both a civil and an ecclesial wedding is a small insurance that this eventuality need not happen. I do not even want to imagine what the implications would be for inheritance, health insurance, pension and other benefits. Critics would contend that the problem is not the priest and his role for the Church and State; the trouble is that Catholic couples, who are the true ministers of the sacrament, are not keeping their promises. There is also an “intentional” difficulty with Catholics going to a hall or court after the Church wedding. First, it might undermine the full reality of the sacrament, as if there is something constitutive that is missing. Second, given whatever ritual that may be used, it may constitute “simulation” which is forbidden regarding the sacraments. (Marriage renewals must always adjust the vows to recognize that there is a distinction with the original and true marriage.) Remember, that while the notion of permanence has been compromised by divorce, the vows used by civil officials are often the same used at Church weddings, and stipulating “until death do we part”. Schizophrenic or not, such is the situation. For the Catholic there is no such thing as a parallel marriage, once the deed is done, it is done. Two ceremonies tends to harm this appreciation.

If one argues that state marriage is an entirely different species from Church weddings, then what about the marriages of Protestants and other non-Catholics by civil magistrates? Not bound by Catholic law, we always considered those marriages valid. However, by extension, the professor’s argument would seem to infer that such marriages, even between men and women, would have no more reality and substance than that of gays and outright fornicators. Of course, I am probably wrong here, and he would likely contend that “properly disposed” people would still be able to confect a suitable bond, even if only a natural one.

As a postscript, I have a priest friend (on the faculty of a seminary) who vehemently disagrees with me. He thinks that the Church should get out of the marriage business completely and hand the whole mess over to the state. Obviously, I would very much object.

********************

Here is a recommended book that continues the discussion about the tension and disconnect between Catholicism and contemporary American society, particularly the Democrat Party:

Agree or not with it, the book makes interesting reading and will surely inspire lively discussions!

Filed under: Adultery, Homosexuality, Marriage, Priests, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Sin | 5 Comments »

Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction Prayer at the DNC

Posted on September 7, 2012 by Father Joe

With a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” let us close this convention by praying for this land that we so cherish and love:

Let us Pray.

Almighty God, father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed to us so powerfully in your Son, Jesus Christ, we thank you for showering your blessings upon this our beloved nation. Bless all here present, and all across this great land, who work hard for the day when a greater portion of your justice, and a more ample measure of your care for the poor and suffering, may prevail in these United States. Help us to see that a society’s greatness is found above all in the respect it shows for the weakest and neediest among us.

We beseech you, almighty God to shed your grace on this noble experiment in ordered liberty, which began with the confident assertion of inalienable rights bestowed upon us by you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus do we praise you for the gift of life. Grant us the courage to defend it, life, without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected. Strengthen our sick and our elders waiting to see your holy face at life’s end, that they may be accompanied by true compassion and cherished with the dignity due those who are infirm and fragile.

We praise and thank you for the gift of liberty. May this land of the free never lack those brave enough to defend our basic freedoms. Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty: the first, most cherished freedom bequeathed upon us at our Founding. May our liberty be in harmony with truth; freedom ordered in goodness and justice. Help us live our freedom in faith, hope, and love. Make us ever-grateful for those who, for over two centuries, have given their lives in freedom’s defense; we commend their noble souls to your eternal care, as even now we beg the protection of your mighty arm upon our men and women in uniform.

We praise and thank you for granting us the life and the liberty by which we can pursue happiness. Show us anew that happiness is found only in respecting the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Empower us with your grace so that we might resist the temptation to replace the moral law with idols of our own making, or to remake those institutions you have given us for the nurturing of life and community. May we welcome those who yearn to breathe free and to pursue happiness in this land of freedom, adding their gifts to those whose families have lived here for centuries.

We praise and thank you for the American genius of government of the people, by the people and for the people. O God of wisdom, justice, and might, we ask your guidance for those who govern us: President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Congress, the Supreme Court, and all those, including Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, who seek to serve the common good by seeking public office. Make them all worthy to serve you by serving our country. Help them remember that the only just government is the government that serves its citizens rather than itself. With your grace, may all Americans choose wisely as we consider the future course of public policy.

And finally Lord, we beseech your benediction on all of us who depart from here this evening, and on all those, in every land, who yearn to conduct their lives in freedom and justice. We beg you to remember, as we pledge to remember, those who are not free; those who suffer for freedom’s cause; those who are poor, out of work, needy, sick, or alone; those who are persecuted for their religious convictions, those still ravaged by war.

And most of all, God Almighty, we thank you for the great gift of our beloved country.

For we are indeed “one nation under God,” and “in God we trust.”

So dear God, bless America. You who live and reign forever and ever.

Amen!

Note: The major networks purportedly cut away from the convention and did not show the prayer.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, God, Homosexuality, Jesus, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 1 Comment »

The Scandal of Father Bob Pierson

Posted on August 24, 2012 by Father Joe

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, what is your take on Father Bob Pierson?

FATHER JOE:

I had heard of him but had not followed the recent business about his ten minute statement that went viral attacking the initiative supported by the U.S. bishops in opposition to so-called same-sex marriages.

What the priest fails to appreciate is that conscience must be properly informed. Freedom of conscience is not relative moral license. Otherwise, the cause of conscience could be rallied not only for homosexuality but also for other evils like polygamy, bestiality and pederasty. Rather, true liberty comes with an orientation to that which is true and good. Obedience to divine positive law (as revealed in the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and natural law (as ascertained through the right use of reason to the objective order) makes us truly free. The commission of sin and immoral acts brings not freedom but spiritual bondage.

The priest in the video takes statements from the Church and churchmen out of context, much as a fundamentalist minister might from the Bible to support his claims. Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope, has certainly always taught about the obligation in following conscience; however, he has likewise insisted that homosexuality is a serious sexual disorientation and that the commission of genital acts associated with it are intrinsically immoral.

Notice that he quotes Cardinal Hume who wrote, “Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.” His quote came in the context of a larger statement in the UK on the homosexual question. While it is certainly permissible to exhibit fraternal and platonic love, as in most friendships, it would be wrong to equate these words with sexual activity and or anal or oral sex. This is another instance where the priest’s remarks are deliberately deceptive. He is well educated and knows what he is doing. This makes him all the more culpable.

Father Pierson is selective in his quotes from the universal catechism. Note that he does not read from CCC #1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Although he attempts to bracket off sacramental marriage in the Church from civilly recognized marriages, such is only a shallow ploy to avoid personal censure and to elicit support from normally orthodox Catholics. The way that society views marriage informs and spills over into how the faithful understand the sacrament of marriage. Indeed, he, himself, is a staff member in an organization where a Protestant minister and an ex-Catholic bless same-sex unions. Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.

The speaker acknowledges that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that homosexuals should not be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. Father Pierson has “come out” that he is a homosexual who opposes Church teaching. We can only hope that he has kept his promise of celibacy. Regardless, he now ridicules the Holy Father and takes a scandalous position against the U.S. bishops and the Marriage Matters campaign. I should add, however, that marriage was threatened long before this issue of so-called same-sex marriage. Marriage was imperiled by growing rates of promiscuity, cohabitation, contraception, adultery, divorce (especially the no-fault variety), and remarriage outside the Church.

Father Pierson had resigned from his post as director of campus ministry after the Vatican officially barred men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from ordination, and because of associated issues in the Church’s faith and moral teaching. “Because I can no longer honestly represent, explain and defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I feel I must resign,” he said. It was also rumored that he was forced out, as he should have been, to avoid further intervention from higher-ups.

His local bishop, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis has strenuously promoted the amendment in opposition to so-called same-sex marriage. He required parishioners in the archdiocese to recite A Prayer for Marriage as part of the General Intercessions at Masses. The U.S. bishops have been very clear in their opposition. Marriage is only genuine if it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Back in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Vatican, made a statement for correction and support of a letter promulgated by the American bishops. Father Pierson selectively quoted him, but strangely and dishonestly, not this statement which speaks to the question at hand.

Follow this link for the statement:

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”

“To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent….”

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

Father Bob Pierson, O.S.B. should be disciplined by his Benedictine order. He has caused scandal and given rise to public dissent from the Church. His faculties to function as a priest should be revoked or curtailed. As a man under ecclesial obedience, he should either publicly recant his dissent or face immediate dismissal. A priest who recommends mortal sin is no longer aligned with Christ. Even if he should be demented or ignorant, he is now on the side of the evil one.

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, I agree with everything you said, albeit except for maybe one small clarification. You write, “Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.” Father Bob would disagree as he was careful to differentiate between civil marriages, which are all “outside the Church” and the Church does not recognize anyway and “sacramental” marriages within the Church. Thus, Father Bob would argue that his voting NO on banning same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with Church teaching on sacramental marriage.

I completely agree this priest should be disciplined severely. But will he be? Almost certainly not, and this is the primary reason for our current crisis. Dietrich Von Hildebrand called it the “Lethargy of the Guardians” as far back as the 70’s. We have suffered under the complete unwillingness of ecclesiastical authority since Vatican II to discipline clerics and bishops for egregious sins against doctrine and the faith. What makes it worse is that the same ecclesiastical authority DOES discipline and bring the hammer down for breaking procedural rules/canon laws that have nothing to do with heresy or doctrine. This sets up a practice which lessens the credibility of the bishops who selectively punish lesser offenses while allowing the most egregious publicly scandalous statements from dissenting priests to go unpunished.

I would dare say it is a sin for this man’s bishop or superior not to discipline him in some way, including at minimum, silencing him on this issue to at least minimize further scandal. Will it happen? I’m willing to bet you a shiny nickel it will not. And it is a slap in the face to you and other good priests who would be punished in a second if you did something like deny Holy Communion to a practicing Lesbian Buddhist who introduced you to her “lover” in the sacristy before Mass.

FATHER JOE:

The priest has a track record beyond the video. (I have not directly linked the video, only a strong critique. Those who want to see it can Google the liberal propaganda.)

He recognizes same-sex marriages as valid, both civilly and in the eyes of God. What confuses the issue is that he denies that there has to be concurrence or approbation from the “institutional” Church. I do not have proof, but like some of his Episcopalian liberals, he would love to bless (and maybe has) these unions. He is a regular speaker at gay-lesbian conventions. Remember, too, that priests are only allowed to witness marriages in the U.S. that are also civilly recognized. We function as both civil magistrates and as ministers of the Church. This is not the case in many countries where Catholic couples are required to endure two ceremonies. Such only happens in the U.S. when there is a convalidation.

I should add, that the Church generally recognizes civil marriages between spouses who are not Catholic. If they are legitimately baptized, then there may be a sacramental character as well. Indeed, if there is a divorce and a desire to marry a Catholic, they would have to pursue a formal case annulment with no guarantees of success. Now we will further have to clarify that we do not recognize adulterous marriages or feigned same-sex marriages. I suspect, given the pressure from the Obama administration, that clergy will eventually have to forfeit their civil authority over marriages in order to distinguish the sacramental covenant from the civil legal contract. Once the definition of marriage diverges, we cannot be party to something in which we do not believe. This may already be happening in light of no fault divorce. I would also not be surprised if the government should seek to compel clergy to witness same-sex marriages. The rights of the Church are very much threatened. I pray that our bishops and priests will have the courage to face fines and imprisonment. The latter is quite possible, if the Church’s stand against homosexuality should be judged as a violation of civil rights laws and as hate-speech.

Further, the priest has been involved in the Catholic gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual community. He knows full well the canonical restraints upon Catholics and does not care. All this is to say that the video is deceptive propaganda. He is a liar. Even when he throws out crumbs of feigned respect to Church discipline, they are lies. If you are familiar with his work in Collegeville, then you would know that he also rejects the “proles” (open to human generation) element that is essential to the covenant of marriage. He literally believes that anal intercourse consummates the bond. It is in light of all this that I said that he is a heretic regarding the sacrament of marriage.

In regards to disciplinary measures, they may actually be in the works. Had he been a secular or diocesan priest matters might have been easier. The Benedictines tend to protect their own and have a rather progressive track record in his particular community. One of them (Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB) recently attacked the corrected translation of the Mass at the national Call to Action convention. They also honored the Lesbian Buddhist-Catholic you mentioned and the pro-abortion Catholic Maryland governor was also in attendance. There are a lot of trouble-makers to go around these days.

Orthodox and traditional churchmen have a higher capacity for suffering in that they love the Church and seek to be obedient while the other side really does not care; liberal breakaway groups, as with Archbishop Milingo and Washington’s own Father George Stallings, were also censured and even faced excommunication. In this sense, there is some parallel. I suspect that many in the Church find the contemporary situation almost overwhelming given the pervasive dissent. During this silent and not so silent schism, there is also the worry that the wrong action might lead the ignorant or weak of faith out of the Church. You are right, not all shepherds are to be trusted. But we must also be careful NOT to spread calumny and to hurt good men who are doing their best.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be hoping that attrition and orthodox replacements among the clergy might hold the answer. My worry is that he, himself, is not a young man. I have found an almost uncharitable delight in how Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the new Ordinary for San Francisco is making the gay establishment squirm and fret. They were pouting the other day because he outlawed drag queens at fundraisers! Really?

Again, do not be fooled. He might say that “…for committed, same-sex couples is not the Sacrament of Matrimony,” but he really does see it as analogous. Remember, sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin. There is nothing equivalent to it. As a priest he knows this. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Bishops are right on this one. So-called same-sex marriages are indeed a threat to the genuine covenant of marriage, natural or sacramental. There is no loop-hole or escape clause that would allow Catholics to support institutional sodomy.

STEPHEN:

Thanks for the background. In this video he seems to take the stance of…”who cares what the state of MN deems as ‘marriage’ since the Church only recognizes sacramental marriages anyway?” He argues the flip side of religious freedom by stating that the Church should not dictate to the state how it defines “marriage” as civil and Church marriages are separate entities and (in his mind) serve different purposes.

FATHER JOE:

The secular sphere in the public forum would not appreciate marriage as a sacrament. Rather, the point of intersection between the Church and state is the traditional view of marriage as a “natural bond.” The growing division between the Church’s view of marriage, as well as that of natural law, is the reason why someone like Bai Macfarlane has campaigned heavily for traditional marriage and against no fault divorce. Some of her supporters would claim that the conflict or opposition between the civil and ecclesial view of marriage has reached a breaking point, in both the heterosexual orientation and its permanence. They argue that clergy should opt out entirely from working within the system. They suggest that the priest who witnesses any marriage for the state has corrupted (by association) the Catholic understanding. This argument becomes even more defensible if society should formally equate same-sex unions with heterosexual marriages. While priests will not officiate at the feigned marriages of homosexuals and lesbians; will the truth be compromised by our continuing partnership with government in witnessing marriages and signing civil licenses? But what is the alternative? Priests in Europe and Asia often find that in the dual ceremony-system, couples tend to cohabitate if there is any extended duration between the vows before a judge and those before a priest.

The priest errs seriously, by his own admission, for failing to fault the homosexual lifestyle as sinful. Indeed, he seems to praise and to encourage the commission of evil. People of the same gender can be friends but they cannot be spouses. A legal fiction will not make it so.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 8 Comments »

Parthenogenesis: Babies Without Sex & Males

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Father Joe

It Takes One To Tango
By William Saletan
Sunday, June 10, 2007; Page B02

The article states:

“Still, the process hadn’t been proved in sharks or mammals. And there seemed to be a good reason why. An egg that fertilizes itself makes two identical sets of chromosomes, including sex chromosomes. In birds, snakes and most lizards, two identical sex chromosomes make a male. That allows parthenogenesis to function as a DNA survival mechanism, because an isolated female — close your ears, kids — can produce a son and mate with him. But in sharks and mammals, this wouldn’t work, because two identical sex chromosomes — XX — make a female.”

Virgin birth happens statistically with one in every 10,000,000 human births. The offspring is always a girl, which is further verification of how miraculous was the Christ as a boy. Such was only supernaturally possible.

Goodness, can you imagine the headache and reproach if suddenly a chaste Catholic girl found herself pregnant, without even the benefit of a man and the enjoyment of mortal sin? Who would believe her? As a nun in the cloister she would be forced to surrender her child to adoption. As a layperson, she would face the stigma of being a single mother or racing around to find some noble man willing to marry her and to believe her story, accepting the public blame for a child he did not help conceive.

The article goes on to say:

“Mammals are different. We have a mechanism called imprinting, which foils parthenogenesis. But we’ve also developed an organ that can foil imprinting: the human brain. A few years ago, scientists produced 10 mice, two of them apparently normal, by manipulating a couple of genes so that eggs could fertilize each other. The scientists predicted “even greater improvements in the efficiency of parthenogenetic development in mice,” and they vowed to try next with pigs.”

I am not sure if there are any moral problems with parthenogenetic research in animals. But as for human beings, the notion of taking sperm and genetic DNA material from two females to create a embryo (for research purposes) seems highly suspect and wrong. There are a host of serious questions. One might contend that such efforts at reproduction foil the natural law which requires one man and one woman and the marital act.

However, if parthenogenesis (the fusion of two eggs) already exists in human-beings (although quite rare) then might one argue that enabling such a process is just a promotion of a rare naturally occurrence. Of course, those who terminate pregnancies also claim that they merely do what sometimes happens naturally, miscarriages. My contention would be that a rare statistical event of this sort (parthenogenesis) represents an abnormality and that which is the usual and most frequent instance of reproduction must be considered normative. Further, while human science can change all sorts of parameters, this in itself does not make such research moral. Men can act against their nature and this includes the reduction of human life to a commodity or to a curiosity for medical research and experimentation.

“Will we try parthenogenesis in humans? We already have. Biotech companies are rushing to industrialize it, with one claiming “a dominant patent position in the production of human embryonic stem cells by parthenogenesis.” The stem-cell version of parthenogenesis can’t make babies, but the mouse version might be able to. Theoretically, it would make it possible for two women to create a child together — not a clone, but a mixture of genes from each parent, just like you or me.”

Women might be able to have children together? Given that a number of women only rank the importance of men based upon their abilities to perform from the waist down, this possibility seems to make men largely disposable. Technologies give women devices for various forms of masturbation and now reproductive schemes would grant them “female” offspring. Socially, many women have already made the break, particularly in the households of female single parents. I recall in a liberal minority congregation years ago being told by a woman getting federal and state assistance: “What do I need a man for? I already have my babies!” Men provided entertainment and a stud-service, but nothing else.

Lesbian couples would not have to adopt but could now have children from their own combined DNA. This is a jump from the fusion of two egg cells in a single woman to the forced sharing of genetic material between two. Indeed, there is no scientific reason why genetic information could not be shared from many individuals. Of course, this would quickly represent a new eugenics with designer children. Men could participate, but would be completely optional, unless one wanted a male child.

I see no significant reason why such research should be pursued. The race is not facing immediate extinction.

Filed under: Family, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin | 3 Comments »

Fake Priests for Show in Japan

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Father Joe

I find this story somewhat difficult to figure out. Christian-style weddings are all the vogue in Japan and Westerners are making lots of money pretending to be priests at these services.

Mark Kelly from the UK explained,

“I was living in Sapporo, studying Japanese, and I needed the money. It’s far better paid than teaching in a language school. Being a fake priest is big business in Japan – I’ve done a TV commercial for one company. In Sapporo, there are five agencies employing about 20 fake priests. In a city like Tokyo, there must be hundreds.”

Read more in the article at BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6067002.stm

Since the weddings have no legal force, the couples must also go to civil magistrates. It is truly bizarre because while only about 1% of the Japanese are Christian, 90% of weddings are performed in a Christian way. I am not talking about the content of the prayers, but rather the borrowed ritual and festivities. Prayers are often perloined from many sources. The old Shinto chapels are gathering dust and Christian ones are doing a booming business!

Of course, it is all about externals. These wedding chapels have flowing fountains, plastic cherub angels, flowers and special lighting. They are popping up everywhere, even in shopping malls.

The article says that the Japanese priests are not happy, but the problem is that there are not enough priests to satisfy the demand. The article and the Japanese are both missing the point.

The real priests in Japan have every right to be angry. It is admitted that many people do not know that fake priests are performing the ceremonies. Impostering a cleric is illegal in many nations and such should be the case in the Orient, too.

Is no one using this fascination with Christian marriage ceremonials for evangelistic and catechetical purposes? It is a tragedy that people are attracted to the externals and yet unable to appreciate the meat-and-potatoes of what Christian faith and the sacraments are about.

Does not the presence of fake priests pose a real danger that a few actual believers might get conned by them and think they are married when really they are not?

Real Catholic priests are generally forbidden to marry couples where neither is a member of the Church. Thus, the dilemma is more than a priest shortage.

Are there any ex-priests or laicized priests among these so-called fake priests? It all reminds me of the local problem with Rent-a-Priests. There are no checks on their abuses. If you pay, they will pray.

This story might seem like only a harmless oddity, but I would disagree. A fake priest and a ceremony for show, empty of substantial meaning or faith constitutes a deceit or fraud. Marriage implies promises being made where honesty and truth are paramount. A counterfeit priest and service undermines the truth with lies.

Filed under: Catholic, Faith, Marriage, News, Politics, Priests, Sacraments | 11 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »