Marriage | Blogger Priest

ARCHBISHOP MILINGO – SCHISM OVER MARRIED PRIESTS

Posted on October 3, 2006 by Father Joe

Bishop Seeks to Change No-Marriage Rule
By WILLIAM C. MANN
The Associated Press

Wednesday, July 12, 2006WASHINGTON — Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, whose 2001 marriage caused an international scandal within the Roman Catholic Church, set out on a new mission Wednesday to override church rules and let married priests continue their ministries. / The Zambian archbishop said he was championing the cause of married priests even before his marriage, but his new goal is to end the church’s celibacy rule.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201616.html

[Here is Archbishop Milingo on the left] He begged married priests to “come out of their Catholic prisons and be reinstated, taking once more their pastoral responsibility among the married priests.” He continued: “To those priests who may feel that by marrying they have stepped down or fallen short, unleash your burden of humiliation, exclusivity and shame. Come among your fellow `sinners,’ so considered, who were to be branded, and to be forgotten forever as weaklings.”

Archbishop Milingo was taken aside by Church officials and the late Pope John Paul II interceded to pursuade him to return to the fold and renounce the marriage, which he did four months later in August 2001. The attempted marriage had been conducted by Rev. Sun Myung Moon (Unification Church) and the woman was a South Korean, Maria Sung. Unsure of his stability, he remained in seclusion for a year in Argentina. His supposed wife from the arranged marriage complained bitterly about the situation. Archbishop George Augustus Stallings, chief primate of his own independent African American Catholic congregation (Imani Temple, 1989) also married an Asian woman at the ceremony. He hosted the press conference yesterday, Wednesday, July 12. [See Bishop Stallings here on the right and Archbishop Milingo below]

Now, Archbishop Milingo (76 years old) has gone over the deep end again and is back with Maria Sung. Like other dissenters, he refuses to leave the Church, desiring instead to force her to change. “My position is very clear in my understanding of my ordination by the church. Once a priest, always a priest. Even though a priest can renounce his vows and be defrocked by the church, the church avows that he always remains a priest.”

[Here above is Bishop Stallings with his wife.] The archbishop said there are some 150,000 married priests around the world and about 20,000 in the U.S. who should be returned to ministry.

Here is the text of Archbishop Milingo’s speech at the Washington Press Club:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are dealing with a very serious matter that has affected the Catholic Church for many years. In the last 35 years since the International Catholic Synod of Bishops in 1971, the struggles surrounding celibacy have worsened. If in 1971, the church listened to the appeals of Bishops to offer celibacy as an option to those who would bind themselves to it for their entire lives, but let those called to be ordained priests, yet married, to fulfill their calling, then today we would not be harvesting straw instead of divine graces.

The seriousness of the matter was emphasized once again when the US Bishops raised the issue as we entered this third millennium. Once more the authorities in the Vatican waved it off, to the detriment of the church in USA and around the world.

Married priesthood has existed as early as the time of Moses, as we read in Leviticus that they were all married, the family of the High priest Aaron. Some argue that what was demanded in that priesthood was merely a legal purity. But when God demanded sanctity as a sign of being intimate with Him, this injunction of sanctity was still more applicable to priests: “Be holy, because I, your Lord, am holy.” Sanctity or holiness is the first requirement of any priesthood, married or celibate.
The Apostles ordained priests and bishops, regardless of their marital status. St. Paul ordained Timothy and consecrated him to Bishopric. He ordained the first Bishop of the Island of Malta, who was a married man. As St. Paul said to Timothy, the one condition he imposed upon a Bishop was to marry only once.

“A Bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self controlled, decent, hospitable,, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.” (Timothy 3:2-3)

Some people will be surprised to hear of what became of Zacchaeus, the short man whom Jesus called down from a sycamore tree and then visited his house. He truly was converted with his whole family, and ended being consecrated Bishop of Caesarea Philippi. (History of the Church: Venturi).

Jesus shared fully with all his apostles, both married and non-married, all that was required to be an Apostle. He did not show favoritism to any of them. Even as He gave them responsibilities, He looked to each one’s capacity, and relied on each of them. The question of celibacy was not His preoccupation. I think that the demands presented by St. Paul to a candidate to Bishopric are more than sufficient for the life of a Bishop. Looking back to priesthood from which rank a Bishop comes the same demands are applied to the priesthood.

We hereby appeal to those Bishops who have been sent to the monasteries, condemned forever, never to appear any more to their faithful. Let them come out of their Catholic prisons and be reinstated, taking once more their pastoral responsibility among the married priests. Please let us know where you are, be in contact with us.

To those priests who may feel that by marrying they have stepped down or fallen short, unleash your burden of humiliation, exclusivity, and shame. Come among your fellow “sinners,” so considered, who were to be branded, and to be forgotten forever as weaklings. Come in, but never come with lamentations. Your burden has been loaded off, you come light, released from any weight of sinfulness. Become a Magdalene, a Paul, a Peter or Augustine, or one of the many others who never looked back to their struggling past. They all became outstanding saints, in spite of their former weaknesses.

To our beloved “Mother Church,” we beseech you to open your arms to these prodigal children who have longed to return home and have so much to offer. There is no more important healing than the reconciliation of 150,000 married priests with the Mother Church, and the healing of a Church in crisis through the renewing of marriage and family. The Church has nothing to lose by allowing priests the option to marry. Historically, out of holy marriages have come priests, popes, saints, and loving servants of God and the Church.

It is out of our love for our Faith and deep concern for its future that we proclaim this day, the end of mandatory celibacy, and the option for priests to sanctify the family as it was intended in the Garden of Eden, even as they fulfill their calling and ordination.

Sponsored by Stalling’s AACC, the archbishop is going to spend six months traveling the U.S. spreading his dissent and witnessing to his breech of promises made to God and to the Church. He is a disgrace and proof that the Church must be more careful in the future about who is made bishop.

Archbishop Milingo goes every which-a-way. He made promises of perpetual celibacy and obedience. Then he broke them and attempted marriage, making a promise he was not entitled to keep to a woman. Shortly thereafter, he put her aside and reaffirmed his promise of celibacy and pledged obedience to the Holy Father. [See the statement below] Now, he has renounced his promises to God and the Church again and has returned to his so-called spouse. What they might do in bed is not something about which I would speculate; however, he has joined himself to heretics and in Stallings, an excommunicated priest who likes to masquerade as a bishop or patriarch (his own pope)!

Maverick Archbishop Weds in Manhattan
http://www.wewillstand.org/media/20010528.htm

Vatican Regrets Marriage of Bishop Milingo
http://www.cathnews.com/news/105/128.html

Married Archbishop Back to Work
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2482321.stm

Media Coverage of Archbishop Milingo
http://www.archbishopmilingo.org/media_coverage.htm

Married Archbishop Decalres New Ministry
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060712-110557-8071r.htm

Rome Exorcist says Archbishop Milingo Brainwashed
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/amorth.asp

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | 3 Comments »

ARCHBISHOP MILINGO EXCOMMUNICATED!

Posted on October 2, 2006 by Father Joe

Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo (of Zambia) was excommunicated on Tuesday, September 26 by the Vatican for his break with the Church in celebrating an unauthorized episcopal ordination and/or installation. He was already in trouble for an “attempted” marriage to Marie Sung, a Korean acupuncturist (which took place in 2001). I say “attempted” because marriages that break the rules in the Catholic Church are considered null-and-void. He is only feigning marriage and any sexual activity is fornication. He reconciled with the Church, claimed he was brainwashed, and then left again.

He used to perform unauthorised exorcisms and large scale healing services. He was known for being flamboyent and outspoken. But it looks like the Catholic Church will have the final word. This week he participated with George, wannabee Pope, Stallings in the installation of four men as bishops. His campaign, called MARRIED PRIESTS NOW! seeks to end compulsory celibacy for priests. It has been at least 20 years since such a highly ranked clergyman has been excommunicated.

The Vatican described the archbishop as “spreading division and confusion among the faithful,” and so censure was necessary and we need to pray fervently for healing and fidelity during “these moments of ecclesiastical suffering.” The archbishop was guilty of “irregularity and of progressively open rupture of communion with the Church.” Both Milingo and Stallings were participants of the mass wedding celebrated by Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church in New York back in 2001. Moon picked out Asian women for both men.

Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington, said Archbishop Milingo’s actions in attempting to name bishops without Vatican approval were “clearly illicit.” (Unfortunately, this does not mean that the bishops are necessarily “invalid”!) The event took place on Sunday at the Imani Temple on Capitol Hill, which is operated by pseudo-Archbishop George Augustus Stallings Jr., a former Catholic priest who defected back in 1989. Stallings must have had some concern or doubt about his own episcopal orders because he was one of the men consecrated by Archbishop Milingo. The others were Peter Paul Brennan of New York; Patrick Trujillo of Newark, N.J.; and Joseph Gouthro of Las Vegas.

Some have suggested that Milingo is demon-possessed. Back in the 1970’s his healing services were so wild that he was warned by Rome. He incorporated local customs and it was said that his rituals resembled voodooism. He was told to stop but refused. Ordered to Rome in 1983, he continued his bizarre ministry and became a celebrity drawing thousands to services and for exorcisms. Now he suffers from automatic “latae sententiae” excommunication for participation in unauthorised ordinations.

It is all just too sad. Note that while the various News services assert in headlines that the Vatican excommunicated him, the truth be said, he did it to himself. All that Rome is doing is declaring the obvious, stating a fact to insure that faithful Catholics are not fooled into thinking Archbishop Milingo and his cronies are in good standing.

FATHERJOE: Milingo & Schism

WASH POST: Milingo Excommunicated By Vatican

Below is a Spanish parody of the issue, not recommended for everyone, okay, maybe not recommended for anyone! I thought Spain was more respectful of the Church. You have been warned:

DISCUSSION

JOHN PAT:

A tragic shame!!! Stallings et al are considered Valid “Old Catholic” Bishops…to what purpose for another line of Apostolic Succession. This shows how far the “Old Catholic” position has taken since 1870 with the beginning of the movement. On the other hand “Old Roman” Catholic clergy maintain the discipline and praxis of the Ancient Catholic Church of Holland which predates PIO IX’s establishing a rival heirarchy at Utrecht. One can not be a Roman Catholic Bishop if one is not in communion with Peter! “Old Romans” pray for the Holy Father in the Una Cum at Mass, the “Old Catholics” abandoned such practices along with auricular confession, celibacy, veneration of the Saints etc. TRADITIONALISTs are cast out while PROGRESSIVE get second chances! By this account Archbishop Lefevre should be Canonized.

BISHOP CORNELIUS:

I Whole heartly Agree Bishop Cornelius ECCC UK

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | 2 Comments »

More about Married Priests, Celibacy & the Vocation Crisis

Posted on October 1, 2006 by Father Joe

This is the sixth post in a discussion about married priests and breakaway groups.

ARCHBISHP PETER BRENNAN

Dear Fr. Joe, you are dealing with too little information which you are spinning into nonsense. Perhaps, that is the same spin the Vatican puts on it statements.

My baptismal vows, which are of great interest to you, were made by someone else in my name and are quite intact.

My vows as a religious were simple vows which expired and were not renewed and I did not take final vows.

I was ordained as a married man and did not take any major orders in the RC diocese.

I hate to disturb your fixation on vows but there you go now. No vows were broken. Are you sure you are a Christian, Fr. Joe? Your words sure do not show that. Didn’t Jesus say something about forgiveness and mercy — seventy times seventy? To call your brother priests a cancer is over the top.

FATHER JOE

I am not sure what you mean by too little information. The facts seem quite clear to me and I have no problem with being associated with the mind of the Vatican. Unlike you, I accept the juridical authority of the Holy See and believe that such is an essential element of true Catholicity. Where Peter is, there is the Church!

Promises made by another when we are infants or made by ourselves after the age of reason, either way baptism in the Catholic Church makes one an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, remits original sin, infuses sanctifying grace, and incorporates one as a member of the Catholic Church. If you are no longer a real or practical member of that Church, and as an excommunicant you are not, then you have breached your baptismal promises. If we are baptized as children, we make those vows or promises consciously our own as we get older and reflect upon them. We give thanks for the arms that carried us to the baptismal font and the parents and godparents who formed us in the faith. They gave us a priceless gift.

I cannot speak for you but I know that one of the priests recently consecrated with you, if you are indeed “Archbishop” Peter Brennan, was always driven by a deep-seated need for power and authority. His ambition drove him from Catholic unity and fueled his efforts to create a Church in his own image.

Our parents and sponsors witness on our behalf. As we receive the other sacraments of Penance, Holy Communion and Confirmation those promises are further ratified and made our own.

The priest or deacon says: “By the mystery of your death and resurrection, bathe this child in light, give him the new life of baptism and welcome him into your holy Church.” All respond, “Lord, hear our prayer.” If your baptism took place in a Catholic Church, then it is into this faith community that you were incorporated. The Holy See has clarified again and again, that references in the ritual do not refer to a generic or interdenominational church. In the context of the Church’s prayers and rituals, they always apply specifically to the Catholic Church under the Pope in Rome.

The promise of the Creed also referred directly to the Roman Catholic Church, in which all four marks of the Church are present and undiminished:

The priest or deacon says, “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins, the Resurrection of the Body, and Life Everlasting?”

Parents and godparents respond, “I do.”

The priest continues: “This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it, in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Everyone answers, “Amen.”

This particular I DO and the baptism that followed constituted the most important event in my life. I was too young to remember it, but I became a Christian and a member of the Roman Catholic Church. More important than ordination or even the honors of the episcopacy, is the day when we become adopted sons and daughters of the Father and are reborn in the womb of Mother Church.

You may still espouse a faith in Jesus, but it is not the same as your baptismal faith. You broke away from Catholic unity and joined yourself to schismatics. Now you have excommunicated yourself with Archbishop Milingo. God’s mercy may truly embrace those who through no fault of their own are born into non-Catholic churches; however, as with the Protestant reformers of old, I suspect God’s judgment will be severe for those who abandon Catholicism and lead others to do so as well.

There is no Catholic Church without the Magisterium in union with the Pope. All who would be in this Church must be under the authority of the Holy See and the power of the keys. Even the Orthodox churches, which still possess the sacraments, suffer because of their separation from the Chair of Peter.

Given what you say now, you were not a fully professed religious and should not have claimed as much. My father was a monk for a while but left after a few months. There is a big difference. I wonder what you vows stipulated though.

You write, “I was ordained as a married man and did not take any major orders in the RC diocese.” I suspected this much by looking up your long pedigree. Some critics like me would judge that ordination as dubious.

You write: “I hate to disturb your fixation on vows but there you go now. No vows were broken.” No, I still do not buy it. Any Catholic who turns renegade, breeches his promises before God, even if they were only made on his behalf. I suspect your situation was more complicated than that. Further, look at your associations with Milingo and Stallings. They made all sorts of promises, George as a priest who pledged obedience to Cardinal Hickey and his successors and Milingo who made another special pledge prior to his elevation to the episcopacy. These are your bedfellows. There is an old saying, you know a man by the company he keeps!

Milingo and Stallings attempted marriage in a Moonie ceremony. Violating their promises of celibacy and obedience was bad enough, but they sought marriage in the Unification Church. Their doctrines are so bizarre that they cannot even be reckoned as truly Christian! This was no interfaith ceremony; this was a Moonie service, presided over by the so-called new Messiah himself. Milingo and Stallings thus participated in FALSE WORSHIP!

Now you are in ecclesial communion with them. Beware what “spirit” you might have really received in your so-called consecration!

Finally, yes, I am a Christian, but I will never subscribe to the counterfeit churches that pretend to be Catholic and worship the false Christs that tolerate all sorts of perversity and rebellion but never the hard truths that come from the successors of Peter and the actual Church established by our Lord. If you want mercy then you must be disposed to mercy. Return to an authentic Catholic unity, seek the absolution of the Church and regularize your status as a son of the Church. Accept whatever humiliation that is placed upon your shoulders and do penance for the souls that are lost to the world, the flesh and the devil. Will you do this?

Absolution cannot be offered when there is no sorrow for sin or contrition and firm amendment of life.

The real Jesus forgave sins and healed bodies. But, he also whipped the money-changers out of the temple, he called the Pharisees and scribes whited sepulchers and dead-men’s bones, and he warned us again and again about the terrible tragedy of hell.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

[THE FIRST PART OF THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED. A MAGAZINE THAT SPECIALIZES IN RUINOUS GOSSIP AGAINST CLERGY WAS CITED AND I HAVE DECIDED IN THIS INSTANCE TO CENSOR THE COMMENTS. THE GIST OF THE COMMENTS REMAIN.–Father Joe]

I wonder how many more celibate priests keep the vow like the good [DELETED]? Celibacy is fine for those like you who say they have the charism and are happy with this enforced obligation. But some are not, and it should be optional. No one is calling for the abolition of celibacy, only that it should be optional. Remember Jesus called married men first. What was good for Jesus should be good for the church. The church will be well blessed when priests can marry again.

FATHER JOE

Actually Jesus initially called married and single men to his priesthood. Given the travels of some of the apostles like Peter, it is evident that a higher premium was placed upon ministry than upon marriage. It is possible that some if not many married clergy also practiced periodic or permanent celibacy. IGNATIUS PRESS has a number of books on this subject. (The early model that comes to light is that of married men practicing perpetual continence.)

The Church already has married clergy, our permanent deacons. They can do everything a Baptist minister can do, and are truly within holy orders as well. They can preach, offer communion services, baptize, witness marriages, take communion to the sick, offer instructions and bible studies, and even administer parishes. This is sufficient and we can treasure our priests and their wonderful commitment to celibacy on the behalf of God and his people.

MATTHEW

Frater, one last comment and I’m finished with this… as I am certain will be a relief to you. The discipline (your word) of celibacy is arbitrary in that our Eastern rite brethren in union with the Papacy still have married priests. It is only in the West that it is mandated. Clearly, since this has been a constant practice in the East, celibacy is not a necessary element to priestly ministry. Rome itself does not insist on this. To put your mind at ease, I am and always have been a member in good standing of the Catholic Church. I have been a lector, have taught religious education classes and have counted many members of the clergy as my friends.

However, I am concerned at the decline in members of the ordained ministry. It is not wrong, or disloyal, or heretical to suggest that it might be possible to ordain married men to the priesthood. I am not suggesting the abolition of celibacy, only the expansion of the sacrament to another area of the faithful.

The right to “regulate the sacraments as she sees fit” must be understood in the context of the whole community. The restriction of one sacrament to the point that the others are effectively denied to the faithful is a misuse of power. I grieve to acknowledge that the Albany diocese has just closed another parish, not because of a lack of parishioners, or a lack of offertory receipts, but because of a shortage of priests. My own pastor presides at a Saturday evening vigil, and two or three Sunday Eucharistic celebrations. We discussed this last Sunday, and he agreed that one is draining, two exhausting and a third done almost automatically. This is hardly how we are to be treated by our clergy or how we should treat our clergy, but it is becoming more and more difficult for it to be otherwise.

As a final note, I received some time ago, a missive from my mother. It contained an article from the Michigan Catholic reporting the assignment of the former archbishop of Detroit to a new position in Rome. Cardinal Maida’s new posting was as an administrator. Reading through the list of his new duties, I recognized that he had been made city manager of Vatican City. To take a priest and assign him a full time position outside of priestly ministry rather than putting him back into pastoral service is just poor human resources management. But priestly formation programs do not contain courses in business, accounting, or management. And the hierarchy still hasn’t figured out that they are answerable to us, the faithful.

FATHER JOE

Dear Matthew,

The Church herself calls celibacy a “discipline” as opposed to something that would be “doctrinally” or “sacramentally” mandated as necessary. However, in the West it is not viewed as utterly extrinsic to the sacrament of holy orders, but rather as something that gives our form of priesthood its particular flavor and enhanced meaning. It is a great sacrifice that most men will not embrace; this amplifies something of the sacrificial nature of the priesthood and its operation. I never denied the reality of married clergy or the holiness of married priests, either the few in the West or the many in the East.

I am also concerned about the decline of vocations, although in many places and among certain groups there seems to be a turn-around. I think that it is no accident that in a society where marriage should be in trouble, that a celibate priesthood should also be threatened. We are formed it seems, more by the world than by the faith.

I have never said it was wrong or heretical to ordain married men for the priesthood. Indeed, I count several married Catholic priests, formerly Episcopalians, among my friends. All I am saying is that such has not been our tradition for the last thousand years or so and that a celibate priesthood has roots going back to the very beginning. The Holy Father and the Magisterium certainly have the authority and right to preserve this tradition, whether or not changes are made regarding married men. I have a personal bias in favor of a celibate priesthood, but would never presume to tell Pope Benedict XVI what to do.

If he makes a sweeping concession to conservative Episcopalians we could very soon see hundreds if not thousands of married priests in fully Catholic but Anglican-Use parishes. The rumor is that they would operate as another version of the Western rite, retaining their current disciplines and operating their own seminaries, allowing a married priesthood, although probably no remarriage. But who knows?

One of the more conservative Cardinals was in the press recently when he argued that the Eucharist was a privilege, not a right. I am not sure I can wholly go along with this, given how much at the heart of our faith is the Eucharistic mystery. Certainly, for one reason or another, people must sometimes excuse themselves from the reception of Holy Communion. Nevertheless, I suppose that those who view it as a privilege would fail to see any misuse of power when imposed structures seriously restrict the availability of a priest. They might argue that the real issue is faith and a willingness of candidates to sacrifice their sexual and personal lives for the sake of the needs in the community. It is not entirely clear that a married priesthood would resolve the shortages in clergy. Over half of Lutheran ministers are divorced and remarried. Married Catholic priests in such a situation could hardly get annulments and would have to be suspended just like the renegade celibates who left ministry for marriage in the past. I am not even sure such a lifestyle would be attractive to most men, married or not?

Regulation of the Church’s sacraments is up to the hierarchy established by Christ. We can make suggestions; however, I would hesitate to make moral judgments about those who have been given this sacred trust. I think they care very much for God’s people and feel, at least at present, that a celibate priesthood is still the form that best serves God’s people. That is my feeling, but you are quite right that the governing Church could modify the discipline of celibacy.

I cannot speak to what the Albany diocese is doing or what the overall reasons might be. A number of places are suffering from a priest crunch, but again, other places are seeing numbers go up. Maybe we have to look at what the dioceses are doing and learn from those places that are having success with recruitment?

It is routine practice for a Catholic priest to offer the Saturday anticipatory Mass (not technically a vigil) and a couple of Sunday Masses. This may be draining, but it is the principal work of a priest and should be no big deal. More hands would make for lighter work, but most priests I know are alright with it. We are supposed to get the bishop’s permission before we trinate (say three Masses) on any given Sunday but many bishops give this authority in our priestly faculties for the good of God’s people.

There has been a push to ordain some of the older permanent deacons as priests, since they have shown long-term stability and fidelity in their marriages. This would probably be reserved to retired men. Whether anything will come of it, I do not know.

As for the Cardinal that is going to essentially run Rome for the Holy Father, he will still offer Mass and many thousands of people visit the Vatican daily. I suppose the Pope has great trust in him. Clerics traditional run the small city-state. I never second-guess these moves since I know few of the pertinent details.

Some priestly formation programs today do include courses in accounting and management; although even small parishes hire professionals to do much of the accounting work.

You write: “And the hierarchy still hasn’t figured out that they are answerable to us, the faithful.” Well, yes, there is some truth that the Church leadership should be good stewards for God’s people; but the faithful are also required to offer filial obedience to their pastors and respect to the bishops and the Holy See. The hierarchy of the Church is answerable first, to Almighty God.

Peace, Father Joe

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Celibacy, Magisterium, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

Celibacy, Married Priests & Vocations

Posted on September 30, 2006 by Father Joe

This is the fifth post in an extended discussion about married priests and the breakaway group founded by Archbishop Milingo.

MATTHEW

Part of the answer to the problem of low response to vocations is to improve the Church’s approach to advertising the “product.” You get more potential buyers with an effective ad campaign. It has been my experience that the Church doesn’t advertise for candidates in an effective manner.

FATHER JOE

There are many programs for vocations that would seem to agree with you. However, I suspect the fads they follow to recruit men will only have short-lived results. The real answer is happy and holy priests. The scandals have hurt morale, not to mention the widespread dissent that exists even in Catholic families. Families need to have children and they should encourage them to be priests and nuns. Priests must be men committed to prayer, worship and service. Celibacy is a wonderful way to embrace this calling and it has given the Roman Catholic priest of the West a special charism as a man single-heartedly in love with God. Celibacy is a plus, not a deficit in the equation.

MATTHEW

Not enough positive encouragement is given to young people who are at the point of selecting a career to opt for a consecrated life.

FATHER JOE

This is true, and yet when they see others mock or disrespect priests, it is no wonder that they might also become cynical or close the door to such a vocation as priesthood or consecrated life. There are also way too many rascals in the ranks.

Note also that the priesthood is not simply a CAREER; it is a way of life. All day, each day, everywhere he goes– the priest is a priest!

MATTHEW

When was the last time you went to a high school career night (other than at a Catholic high school) to encourage young men to take up the challenge? When was the last time your bishop went on such a mission? This is a mission activity and it looks like one that is invisible to the hierarchy. Remember, not all committed Catholics attend Catholic schools.

FATHER JOE

You are very presumptuous. I am the product of public schools and know well the challenges of outreach to the community outside the parochial system. However, sometimes there is active resistance to allowing priests and religious a forum in the context you mention.

MATTHEW

I know that I applied to the seminary when I was young, but for no given reason they wouldn’t take me.

FATHER JOE

I cannot say why they did not take you. Did you try somewhere else? Were the problems in the psychological screening? Did you have the proper recommendations? Did you show respect to the Church and the clear capacity for obedience? Were you committed to celibacy? But in any case, the priesthood is not for everyone. I have some close friends who studied to be priests but for one reason or another, did not complete the formation. We may think we have a calling, but that vocation must be confirmed by the Church herself— another form of regulation.

Sometimes this regulation fails, either because of incompetence in those placed over seminarians or because the candidates themselves conceal serious problems or reservations that later explode.

MATTHEW

I also know a number of men who attended seminary because they wanted to be priests and dropped out because they didn’t feel called to celibacy.

FATHER JOE

It is a good reason to drop out. Celibacy is a terrible and a wonderful sacrifice. Compared to other men, it makes the priest the “poor” man, unfulfilled in the ways that the world considers important. Nevertheless, celibacy is a great treasure and a hallmark of the priesthood in the West. I am not threatened by a few married clergy. However, I would grieve if this wonderful gift that God bestows his priests was minimized or dismissed as accidental or inconsequential. You might see it that way, but most celibate priests do not. The majority of priests I know in ministry would oppose a change in the discipline, so would I.

MATTHEW

According to Catholic theology one charism can exist independent of any other.

FATHER JOE

Yes, charisms can be distinct but they are rarely if ever independent. They flow one into the other. Such is the case with a celibate priesthood.

MATTHEW

Why do we insist that God triple the charism of priesthood with celibacy and masculinity?

FATHER JOE

I am a faithful Roman Catholic priest. That is why I take these views. I believe that what the Magisterium teaches must be believed. Further, speaking for myself personally, that violation of this trust would bring me disgrace as a priest and forfeit my immortal soul.

The priest must be a man. Christ did not select women to be among the twelve and his example has been followed for two thousand years. He has not told us that we could do otherwise. Gender is not an accidental but has core meaning to our identity and importance for the priest in regard to the incarnation. The priest is a living icon for Christ who functions at the altar as “alterchristus” acting “in the person of Christ, head of the Church.” The priest is Christ, the bridegroom of the Church which is his bride.
The discipline of celibacy, while not intrinsically necessary for the priesthood, certainly has roots in the practice of the ancient Jews, the early Church, the life of Jesus and the witness of St. Paul and others. It is a beautiful way to make a priest a sign of contradiction to the world, a man who offers not only cultic oblation but the sacrifice of his own flesh for the good of the Church.
The priesthood is God’s great gift to the Church. It makes possible the re-presentation of Calvary on our altars, Holy Communion, the absolution of sins, and so much more. It is not a gift that one can merit or for which one is entitled as upon a social justice agenda. No one is worthy of it and yet all of us, on both sides of the sanctuary, benefit from it.

MATTHEW

As you admit these are arbitrary disciplines of Rome. They are not mandated by divine scripture or tradition. Get a better ad campaign. You might surprise yourself.

FATHER JOE

Did I say arbitrary?

Celibacy is a discipline, but it is a long-standing practice that has colored our understanding of the priesthood. The priest belongs to the Church. This is the family that receives his first loyalty and all his time and strength. There should be no competition.

As for the all-male priesthood, it is a matter of unchangeable doctrine. Women cannot be priests and their so-called Eucharist is invalid! The marriage analogy at the altar is distorted by priestesses into a perverse sacramental lesbianism.

The Scriptures and Sacred Tradition lend much support to the current Roman Catholic position. Revisionists pretend otherwise and do not have the high ground.

If all you want are better sales gimmicks then maybe you would prefer one of the breakaway churches? But I hope not, because I am convinced they will incur almighty God’s terrible judgment for harming the mystical body of Christ.

God bless and keep you.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | 1 Comment »

The Church’s Right to Regulate Her Sacraments

Posted on September 29, 2006 by Father Joe

This is the fourth post in a discussion about the married priests movement. This post deals with the authority of the Church to regulate her sacraments.

FATHER JOE

These comments about the sacraments initially came under a post about excommunicated clerics and a breakaway church. I asked the critic, “Have you left the Church?” Certainly, a view that dislodges the sacraments from the charge of the Church implies a movement toward the schismatic and/or Protestant confessions.

MATTHEW

You wrote, “The teaching and governing Church has every right to regulate her sacraments as she see fit.”

Not really, Father. She has, rather, the obligation to administer the sacraments in a fashion consistent with the call to mercy so often issued by Jesus. “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” And again, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” Paul refused to ordain a man to the office of bishop unless he was a married man. He insisted on proof of maturity and the ability to raise a family. I’m not sure that we have anything that works as consistently as that to weed out unsuitable candidates.

Remember that the sacraments are gifts of grace poured out on the unworthy. You don’t regulate gifts. I know that God certainly doesn’t.

FATHER JOE

Sorry, but you are wrong. God does indeed regulate the sacraments, but through the instrumentality and secondary causality of the Church. Certainly, the Church has been given a great charge from Christ, but the statement about the regulation of the sacraments is not my private notion but the long-standing teaching of the faith.

Even history bears this out in such things as the evolution or development of the sacrament of penance [baptism for the remission of sins / second penance / petitioning the living martyrs who survived persecution / repeated auricular confession]. The keys are given to Peter and the Church, he and the Church can loosen and can bind.

The Church can say who can and cannot receive Holy Communion. The Church can require that only men, 25 years of age and older are ordained. The Church can add disciplines like celibacy to the vocation. The Church can mandate a priest or deacon as a witness to marriages. The Church can regulate by faculties what a priest can and cannot do— preach, offer Mass, hear confessions, etc. The Church can set requirements for baptism, particularly the faith and practice of candidates or that of the children’s parents. The bishop can offer confirmation or delegate this to a priest. These are only a few of the many instances of sacramental regulation.

Yes, sacraments bring God’s mercy to men, but it is through the vehicle of the Church and her faith and ministers.

Canon Law, Book 4 spells out various norms and regulations associated with the Church’s sacraments. Non-Catholic and breakaway communities might take from the Church facets of the faith and sacraments, but these elements properly belong to the Catholic Church (the faith community established directly by Jesus as the new People of God).

The universal catechism confirms what I say:

[CCC 1117] As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, THE CHURCH, by the power of the Spirit who guides her “into all truth,” has GRADUALLY RECOGNIZED this treasure received from Christ and, as the FAITHFUL STEWARD OF GOD’S MYSTERIES, has DETERMINED ITS “DISPENSATION.” Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.

[CCC 1118] The sacraments are “OF THE CHURCH” in the DOUBLE SENSE that they are “BY HER” and “FOR HER.” They are “by the Church,” for she is the sacrament of Christ’s action at work in her through the mission of the Holy Spirit. They are “for the Church” in the sense that “the sacraments make the Church,” since they manifest and communicate to men, above all in the Eucharist, the mystery of communion with the God who is love, One in three persons.

Even some of the sacramental guidelines we find in St. Paul (regarding qualifications for bishops, women silent in churches, and his participation in the Council of Jerusalem in the baptism/circumcision debate) were simply the disciplines of the Church current at that time. The Sabbath itself, which you mention, was modified by the Church. The Hebrew Sabbath was moved to Sunday, not because of any utterance from Christ, but by the early regulation of the Church which celebrated the Lord’s resurrection and his Eucharist on Sunday morning.

There are assuredly certain givens about the sacraments granted us by God and distributed by the Church, having to do with their institution and purpose. The Church takes that into consideration but regulates the sacraments nonetheless. I have already given ample examples. But to help you I will offer the quick instance of Holy Communion. The priest might legitimately give you and the community the host alone or he might also give you the cup. Either way, you receive the complete Christ. That decision about distribution, just like receiving in the hand or on the tongue, standing or kneeling, etc. is a form of sacramental regulation.

Are we talking at cross-purposes? You contend that sacraments by their very nature as gifts are freely given and thus cannot be regulated. Well, indeed, the sacraments are gifts given to the Church, but not everyone is entitled to them. Non-Catholics and those outside the Church are not invited to receive Holy Communion or generally any of the sacraments. People who are not properly disposed are not welcome to receive the sacraments, either.

Since the sacraments are Christ’s gifts to the Church, and not per se to us as individuals, the Church has the authority to regulate them— giving them to some and withholding them from others.

MICHAEL

Grace in whatever guise is a gift. All grace is without regulation. The only problem is what use the recipient makes of the gift. This is certainly in accordance with Catholic theology.

FATHER JOE

Yes, grace is always a gift, but not all grace comes solely with the sacraments. Even the movement toward faith and conversion is only possible through divine grace. The sacraments make possible our reception of both actual and sanctifying grace. However, since some graces are reserved to the life of the Church, as for instance with those associated with sacraments and indulgences, they can be regulated. Some graces are gifts both from God and in a secondary way from the administration of Mother Church. So you are wrong again, and increasing Protestant in your perspective. Martin Luther objected to the notion that the Church could make certain graces available in indulgences from the divine treasury of grace that comes from God through the meritorious work and lives of the saints. Further, prayer for the poor souls in purgatory is another case where the Church seeks grace for those souls who are helpless and in need of help regarding the residual temporal punishment due to sin and cleansing from the last vestiges of venial sin, sinful habits or disposition.

The Church can regulate sacraments but sacraments cannot be distorted beyond the boundaries of institution (for example you cannot use pretzels and beer for Holy Communion). Neither can a bishop ordain women as priests!
The disposition of a person, faithless, in mortal sin, etc. can make it a sacrilege to receive a sacrament and render it impossible to merit grace.
While there are graces that one might receive outside the Church, like the gift of conversion, such graces draw people into a greater unity with the Church and Christ’s kingdom.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

Repudiation of MARRIED PRIESTS NOW!

Posted on September 28, 2006 by Father Joe

This is the third post in a discussion about Archbishop Milingo and the disobedient married priests movement.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Dear Father Joe, if that’s who you really are. It would be nice if you had some facts before you give your over the top comments about everyone else’s life. Not that the truth will deter you. I was already married and was a father before I was ordained. So your accusation of breaking vows is rubbish. You may enjoy Archbishop Milingo’s response to the Dicastery Meeting.

The prelature for Married Priests Now! concurs with the Holy Father and the Vatican finding that reaffirms celibacy. As prelature spokesman, I can say that where we disagree is in the enforcement of celibacy as a job requirement for the priesthood. Celibacy should be a freely chosen charism and not a job requirement. Not every priest has the charism to be celibate and this is the problem because the church forces it on him or he cannot be ordained. It is an unjust requirement that violates human freedom.

FATHER JOE

I may only be a poor lowly priest in the Catholic Church, but James Cardinal Hickey who ordained me was an archbishop of the true Church in good standing. I have no reason to doubt my holy orders and unlike you have no need to seek ordination again and again from other sources to make sure it takes.

As for facts, I have enough to know that by your affiliation to Milingo you are an excommunicate of the Catholic Church, “outside of which” as my traditionalist friends like to say, there is no salvation. But what know you of truth since you have breached yourself from the Magisterium which safeguards the deposit of faith and Christ’s truth among men?

Your own biography says that you were once a professed religious? Did you not break those vows? What about baptismal promises and the acclamation of your faith in confirmation? Anyone who breaks away from Catholic unity has broken his promises to God and to his Church. You can join or fabricate your own religion, but your dissent and schism makes you no better than the Protestant reformers. You might have some vague affiliation with Orthodoxy, but since George Stallings ordains women, who cannot be true priests, and since you are in communion with him, you cannot even claim their status. You are no better than the liberal Episcopalians who play at church with priestesses, gay ministers, civil blessings, and plenty of doctrinal heresy.

You are right about one thing, there is plenty of rubbish in my posting, but that comes with the territory of the topic. All of you are a disgrace!

No, our disagreement is about more than celibacy. Do not lie to us about that. Given time the doctrinal and practical divergence will grow even more intense. Such is the way with Protestant communities like yours, especially those staffed by ex-Catholics.

The Church has the authority to regulate the sacraments. The real disagreement here is one of ecclesiology! Mandatory celibacy in the West has worked so far and growing seminary classes indicate that it may continue to work well into the future. However, even if the discipline should change, it will be the decision of the Catholic hierarchy in union with the Holy See. You are not a practical Catholic, at least not anymore, and none of you have any say in the matter. Most of the defected married priests in the United States are old men. They will soon be meeting their Maker.

Nothing about freedom is violated. God gives the charism of celibacy to men he calls in the West. There is no genuine tension or competition between God’s will and the judgment of the Church about her ministries. You for instance, by your rebellious spirit and dissent, illustrate this truth; you probably do not have a vocation. That is why you had to fabricate a priesthood according to your own terms. When Milingo and my brother priest Stallings were ordained, they freely made their promises to their bishops and to God. No one forced them to be ordained. When they tried to get married, they disregarded Church law that stipulated quite clearly than any attempted marriage would be false and would be an occasion of mortal sin and fornication. They went ahead with it any way.

As for yourself, your path might have been different, but still promises were broken…unless you were never Catholic, and that does not seem to be the case. Your use of Scripture apart from the tradition of the Church and her Magisterial authority is Protestantism 101, not Catholicism!

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

We can hardly believe that a meeting of the Cardinals who head the Dicasteries was called to simply reaffirm celibacy. The report that was not released is the important one.

FATHER JOE

Your conjecture gets you nowhere. All the leaks about the meeting indicate that a majority preferred no change to the current discipline. The Pope himself was said to be looking for support to allow conservative Anglicans and Anglo-Catholics into full communion while allowing them to continue their tradition of an optional celibate or married clergy. Otherwise, compulsory celibacy would remain the rule for Roman Catholic priests.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

What did the Cardinals say about a married priesthood? Is the Vatican in such a state of denial that it cannot see the need for a married priesthood?

FATHER JOE

We have married deacons and a few married priests. Most priests I know are happy men who support the present discipline of compulsory celibacy. Are you in such a state of denial that you cannot see that the Church might be right on this one? You are not even a Catholic in good standing; why should you have a say on my priesthood and that other Catholic clergy? Do what you want in your new church; leave us true Catholics alone who are happy with where things are! I do not tell the Lutherans or Episcopalians what to do, even if I do lament their decisions. You should show us the same reserve. The fact that you and your cohorts do not is why I made the post. You are seeking to change, dare I say corrupt the Catholic Church. That is not something about which I can remain silent.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

“The Vatican’s denial of the problem confirms and encourages our mission to recall married priests to full ministry, said Archbishop Milingo. We are the only Catholic diocese calling for the ordination of married men, and for the return of married priests to full ministry,” Milingo said.

FATHER JOE

Milingo is living in fantasy land. He has no Catholic diocese at all. If men (and women) want to excommunicate themselves they can certainly join him. Like I said, many of the men who left priestly ministry for marriage are old now. They will not be with us much longer. Their disobedience can never be rewarded. Good priests remained at their posts and kept their promises, even when the heart strings were tugged. It would not be fair to them to invite the renegades back, particularly given their lack of contrition and restitution of the damage and scandal they caused.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Marriage is a sacrament of the church, celibacy is not. Marriage is higher calling than celibacy. The marriage vow trumps the celibacy promise. Our prelature believes that a married priest is a healthier priest, and that a married priesthood will give priests a healthy and proper outlet for their sexuality. We are created by God as sexual beings and our sexuality needs to be celebrated as a blessing for ourselves and our wives. Marriage needs to be the normal option for priests.

FATHER JOE

Marriage of a Catholic is not a sacrament if it is conducted by the Moonies. Marriage does not trump celibacy, indeed celibacy is a higher element recommended by St. Paul and constitutive of the evangelical counsels. Single-hearted love elevates the priesthood into an even more exceptional and high calling. Promises were made to be kept. A majority of the nation’s married priests who are invited back into ministry by Milingo have been married and divorced and married again. Broken promises often lead to more broken promises.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Married Priests Now! Prelature will hold a conference in Parsippany, NJ on December 8-10 (2006) to celebrate marriage and the priesthood. We will have a Catholic renewal of marriage vows during the celebration of the Eucharist for married priests and their wives.

FATHER JOE

Your argument implies that there is something wrong with celibacy or unhealthy and this is not the truth. It is a popular lie perpetuated by a sex-crazed society. Celibate love stands as a powerful sign of contradiction and it is a witness that condemns the hedonism of our age. Married love is a wonderful gift and certainly it can mitigate the negative effects of concupiscence from original sin; but celibate love is an even more special gift that illumines the life of Christ and the love that belongs to the saints in the heavenly kingdom. A priest’s vowed celibate love convicts the world and even religious movements like yours for its selfishness and disobedience. It is a discipline for sure, but it is not extraneous to priestly identity and service.

Married Priests Now! can do what it wants. I do object to their use of the word, “Catholic.” It is deceptive to poor souls who might not understand that these rascals are not in ecclesial communion with the Holy See. They are not truly “catholic” but are a particular and localized new faith community. Will the Moonie wives receive communion at this so-called Eucharist? They are not even technically Christian in the traditional sense. I suspect your nice little organization will eventually break asunder under the weight of increased doctrinal and ritual divergence.

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

In St. Peter’s Square yesterday, a cleric was quoted in the news as saying that those priests who walked away from the priesthood to marry should not be received back as priests. Our prelature reminds such clergymen that the Gospel of Jesus is about forgiveness. And we remind him that the church is dying for want of priests. Recalling the married priests is a wholesome remedy to help save the church. “The first priests called by Christ were married and the church has always had married priests. We are going back to the New Testament roots of the priesthood when St. Peter and the apostles were married,” said Milingo.

FATHER JOE

The anonymous cleric is correct. YES, that is precisely my view, too. These renegade priests are a cancer or poison that the Church would best expel.

Your so-called prelature may stress forgiveness, but your mercy is a fraud. Forgiveness requires sorrow for sin, penance and even restitution. You rascals are not sorry. Indeed, you parade your disobedience and sins as if they are something about which to take pride. You invite others to separate themselves from the true Church and to live a life of dissent and fracture from genuine Catholic unity. As far as I can tell, that means the absolution you offer is empty or hollow. The disposition is all wrong. The Church may be suffering, but taking married priests who are both disobedient and heretics back to the breast of Mother Church would be more like suicide.

The Church will survive. About that we have Christ’s promise. But, you are no longer a juridical part of that Church, stop pretending otherwise!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

DEBATE ABOUT MILINGO & MARRIED PRIESTS NOW!

Posted on September 27, 2006 by Father Joe

144080553270835

This discussion is based upon yesterday’s post.

AMBER

There are several words for this but all that comes to mind right now is “disturbing.” I simply don’t get how they justify their actions.

GUY

Bongo, Bongo, Bongo— I never should have left the Congo—

What a circus side show! It seems that Peter Brennan is a member of every organization that will take him in.

Guthro, whom I have met on more than three occasions, was ALWAYS in choir cassock even though no liturgy was taking place. I guess if I put out all that cash for those glad rags I’d wear mine to the grocery store too! (I’ve heard that he does as well.)

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

A married priest comments:

Dear Father Joe, the issue was not apostolic succession. Each of these bishops is quite firm in his apostolic succession. The issue was MARRIED priests and bishops. I was ordained as a married priest so your inference about broken promises is mistaken. Your research is weak and minimal since you are just re-hashing media errors and assumptions. You should be able to do better. The Gospel of Jesus might say something about promoting this type of detraction and mud-slinging.

FATHER JOE

If each of these men were truly clear about his apostolic succession, additional ceremonies would be unwarranted. Of course, what really matters is not what each of these men think, but what the true Church holds to be true.

Are you Archbishop Brennan, or just using his name here? The post is unclear and the subsequent comment implies you are someone else.

If Peter Brennan were a professed religious as his biography states, then promises were broken. Or was even this “calling” outside the confines of the “real” Catholic Church? Along with the others, he is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church, outside of which (as the Fourth Lateran Council teaches) there is no salvation. Of course, the spiritual state of those who come to them and receive their sacraments is less clear, depending upon their understanding and profession of faith. I reiterate the Holy Father’s statement of excommunication with no malice, although I cannot pretend to feel no repugnance and sadness. That is probably what you see reflected in my words.

We have thousands of married clergy in the Catholic Church. Some of them were formerly Episcopalians or Lutherans who saw the inclusion of women and explicitly active gays in ministry as the further sign that ritual Protestantism could not constitute any form of third way of orthodoxy or Catholicism, and definitely not an “in media res.” Most of our married clergy are deacons. Indeed, my cousin’s husband is a deacon who operates a parish in North Carolina. The teaching and governing Church has every right to regulate her sacraments as she sees fit. I personally think the discipline of compulsory celibacy is an important and valuable element of Roman Catholic tradition. God works with the genuine shepherds of the Church and thus any man “truly given a religious vocation” also receives the charism of a celibate and single-hearted love. Men who left to get married or those who are angry after making their promises have my pity, but not my support. Given the age we live in, to forsake romantic love and intimacy is an intense sacrifice that should immediately join a priest to the Cross of Christ— not merely in sorrow but in joy. It is wrong to try and force the Church’s hand about a married priesthood. That day may come, but I suspect defections and parallel ecclesial communities will only short-circuit and delay its coming.

Archbishop Richard Arthur Marchenna, if he is the one who initially ordained Brennan, was a bishop of the Old Roman Catholic Church. If he was formerly a member of the true Catholic Church, then here is another case of broken promises, if only those made for him at baptism. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for those who join schismatic and breakaway faith communities. (Was he always ORCC?) While valid orders are sometimes acknowledged for a few of these groups, I must admit that I find much of it quite suspect. Now that some organizations are attempting to ordain women, the small lingering doubts are being brushed away. The priesthood is entirely lost.

I would be curious to see the ordinale recently used by Archbishop Milingo. Canonist friends of mine assert that any episcopal consecrations or absolute ordinations would be valid if the men were already truly priests and if the proper ritual was utilized. Tampering with the ritual, just as old Cranmer did for the Anglicans, can invalidate the whole business. Of course, consecrating bishops must still have the proper intention, and here too I must confess some concern, because it is hard to fathom how a man who claimed he was brainwashed might now be in his right mind.

I never intended a dissertation about what happened. Certainly, I am open to being enlightened. Notice I have not deleted your comments here. Indeed, reading your remarks gave me some peculiar amusement on a dreary overcast Sunday morning.

Do I sling mud? Hum, sometimes I get some on myself, too— mea culpa. In any case, while we very much disagree, these men are very much in my prayers, just as I have prayed daily for George Stallings these many years since my brother priest left the ranks of the Washington presbyterate. PEACE!

ARCHBISHOP PETER BRENNAN

Maybe an honest discussion about married priests would be much more worthwhile. What is the church going to do in twenty years since the average age of celibate priests now is above 70 years of age? Marriage will not make anyone younger but it will attract more young men (and women) to the profession. Here is an excerpt from a Catholic writer Roger Chesley of the Virginia Pilot who sees different possibilities.

With roughly 64 million members, the Catholic Church in the U.S. has struggled recently with rising numbers of parishioners and fewer priests to lead them. There are nearly 41,800 diocesan and religious priests in the country, down from 58,900 in 1975, according to the nonprofit Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

Meanwhile, married Episcopalian and Lutheran priests who convert to Catholicism have been allowed to remain priests, said Ryan of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I’m Catholic, and I’d appreciate a serious discussion among church leaders about married priests. But in no way can I condone what Archbishop Milingo has been doing. His methods are wrong. Though the church generally resists change, there’s still value in working from within— cajoling, persuading, reasoning. The archbishop’s actions amounted to freelancing.

“The church hasn’t moved in that direction at all” to end mandatory celibacy among priests, said Mary Gautier, senior research associate at CARA.

The Holy See Press Office said this week in a communique that the Archbishop Milingo’s “new association of married priests” has spread “division and confusion among the faithful.”

That’s unfortunate, given the importance of the issue that Milingo has done so much to raise.

FATHER JOE

I would agree that Archbishop Milingo has chosen the wrong method of getting his message across. I have no personal problem with priests and laity who work humbly and faithfully within the Church for a change of discipline. Although I believe the issue of women priests has been permanently resolved in the negative by Pope John Paul II and in such a way that it cannot be reopened.

I visited the website for Married Priests Now!

What do I think? Here is my initial reaction:

Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the Holy See, but “Married Priests Now!” is NOT a canonical personal prelature. Such a designation is a misnomer and deliberately misleading. Archbishop Milingo does not have the authority to create his own personal prelature. Archbishop Milingo and the four bishops he consecrated are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. I know of no ground swell to return married priests to full ministry. Indeed, most married priests are themselves of advanced age and will soon be leaving this earthly pilgrimage entirely. If the Church should relax its discipline further in regard to a married priesthood, it is fairly certain that there would not be a retroactive component. Married men might become deacons and priests, but men who broke their vows would not be invited back. They proved themselves unreliable and while ontologically and sacramentally priests forever, will remain inactive and/or canonically laicized.

The “Brennan” poster insists that this is not a matter of assuring apostolic succession, but an article at the website linked to his comment (to which he directed me) says differently: “On September 24, 2006 Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the Roman Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop Emeritus of Lusake, Zambia, consecrated four Americans as Married Roman Catholic Bishops and appointed them to be Roman Catholic Archbishops.” The emphasis is that he made them bishops. Of course, they are all excommunicated, and so can hardly be called “Roman Catholic” given that they are all now disconnected from the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is bigger than one rogue bishop and four pretenders!

The Vatican affirms that they are all automatically excommunicated and yet Milingo states: “We cordially thank the Holy Father for his gracious and caring concern about us and Our College of Bishops and the Prelature for Married Priests Now! It is our intention to be faithful to the Church and to honor and respect the Holy Father. We thank him for his brotherly love and we hope to return the same to him.” Such a response shows one of two things, that Milingo is not above mocking the Church’s negative response or that he can no longer mentally comprehend how the Holy See actually views the situation.

Note that Milingo has violated his own promise of celibacy (by a civil or Moonie marriage if not by consummation) and that he would lead other men in the priesthood to do the same. He also violates a hallmark of Catholic faith, which is obedience. Disobedience by an archbishop to the Pope is no sign of respect, but of rebellion. Such is often the happenstance with fools or liars… and it may be that only God can tell who belongs to which category.

Priests dismissed from ministry for breaking their promises and getting married have been shown no injustice. Indeed, they are the ones who have inflicted a wound upon the Church. The Judas-priest also knows a long succession in the history of the Church and for many reasons like power, passion, weakness, and perversity.

I can respect a man who is released from his promises, is laicized and then gets married with the commitment to remain in the Church and raise his children as good Catholics. But attempting marriage while still bound by the promises of celibacy and obedience is wrong. It not only hurts the priest and the Church, but wrongs the woman by making her a spouse in name only. Civil contracts are not always recognized by God and the Church. Such rogue clergy turn their spouses into concubines and are fornicators masquerading as married men. The injustice on so many levels rests with Milingo and his new apostles.

Given that this Married Priests Now! organization also includes women priests, canonists might argue that there is a defect in intention, making any subsequent ordinations after rupture from Catholic unity– NULL AND VOID! The definition of what constitutes a bishop and priest may not sufficiently jive with genuine Catholic teaching. More and more, this is my opinion.

The Married Priests Now! movement says that they only want the restoration to ministry of married clergy. However, this is not true. Stallings broke away from Catholic unity many years before taking to himself his Moonie Asian wife. Indeed, at one time he was engaged to an Episcopalian gal from Texas, but she declared the whole thing off when troubling stories emerged about Stallings. The Washington Post even published a few articles about his association with certain “young” men in Washington, DC. Certainly, taking to himself a female spouse might put such stories to rest. I suspect that the real issue for him and all these men remains one of authority. George wanted to be a bishop and when that prospect seemed unlikely, he took off. These other men would also not accept being told what to do…not about sexuality…not about anything. Milingo has been fooled into thinking that this is simply a matter about married priests. It is not. It is about four men who wanted to make sure that they were really bishops…and repeated ordination ceremonies is ample evidence that they had their doubts. Milingo was used, plain and simple! Of course, he remains culpable.

Such movements often get quickly out of hand. If Milingo attempts to exert authority over them, I bet you this fragile prelature will fracture. Many of those who support a change in the discipline about married priests could not accept a radical change in doctrine that would permit women priests. We shall see in the weeks and months ahead just how far the contagion of dissent and heresy will go.

While the website is a harbinger of doom about clergy numbers, recent seminary classes are beginning to grow again and the men are more conservative and orthodox than we have seen in a long time. This is the truth that they would hide behind slanted statistics.

The discipline of celibacy is not merely a medieval dictum but is one that the living Church continues to see as worthwhile in most of our priests. It goes back over 900 years and even before that was extolled as the better way by many of the doctors of the Church. St. Paul, himself, recommends it. No one has a right to priesthood. It is a gift that comes from God and is given to the Church. Reserving the priesthood to single men is no injustice to married men and to women. Those that think so, as the site seems to stress, are guilty of wrong thinking… not as the Church thinks.

We read on the webpage: “The sexual abuse accusations against celibate priests in the United States speaks loudly that something is wrong. And what is wrong is the enforcement of a promise of celibacy on secular clergy.” This canard alerts us immediately that the argumentation for married priests is desperate to find reasons for a change. Abusers would still abuse, even if married. Indeed, some of the actual priest abusers had left ministry, gotten married, and then abused their own children… or the babysitters! Although it does not make the news, married Protestant ministers have their own problems, not only with child abuse but with gay relationships and with adultery and remarriage. Half of all Lutheran ministers are divorced and remarried! Indeed, priests who leave ministry for marriage have an inordinately high divorce rate. Priests troubled in keeping their promises and with intimacy will continue to have this struggle even if they should marry.

The website has no love for marriage, but has adopted the Moonie notion that men must be married and that to be single or celibate is to be a failure. Indeed, Jesus is faulted as a Messiah precisely because he failed to get married and have children. Notice what the website says: “Secular clergy should be married so that they can model what a good family is in the church community and so they can relate to the families they serve.” So, what are we to expect, a reversal from compulsory celibacy to compulsory marriage– count me out!

Men who have left ministry in order to get married without laicization can never be permitted to rejoin the ranks of the clergy, indeed, I would even object to these men returning if their spouses should die. They are not to be trusted. (Again, I might make an exception for men who did not attempt marriage and who waited for the laicization process, no matter how long and arduous.) Priests married outside the Church are not really married. Why would I want adulterers and fornicators back in the ranks of our good and faithful priests? No! They might yet repent and save their souls, but should never be allowed to minister in the Church, in any fashion.

Imani Temple and other groups can hold all the conventions they want for these men. Why should I care what a Protestant church does as it masquerades at being Catholic? Given a little more time and most of the thousands who left ministry will be in the grave. Already organizations like CORPUS are aging gatherings of old men. It is best to let them go. Better a smaller pool of priests than to contaminate the presbyterate with dissenters of this stripe. Most of these priests who left to get married subscribed to a whole list of doctrinal deviations, like support for women priests, peculiar Eucharistic theories, and dissent against the Church’s teachings about human sexuality and the evil of artificial contraception. I say let them go and allow God to take care of them.

A lot is made of the fact that these men fell in love, of course some of them bring their second or third wives to these convocations of shared grievances and lament. Honestly, most priests fall in love at some time or the other. Good priests then make distance to insure that they do not lead the woman into mortal sin. It might break his heart, but he lets her go because he has married the Church and promises are made to be kept. If he cannot keep his promises of celibacy and obedience in priesthood; how can he ask couples to keep their promises of marriage? Sometimes the greatest love is not expressed with a kiss or an embrace, but by letting go. Many faithful priests have suffered thus in silence, knowing that it was God’s will and the demand of their vocation. These are my heroes, men who weep for their people and make themselves poor in their service. In a sex crazed world, their celibacy gives them a special connection with the lonely and the poor and the sick. He belongs to them, even as he surrenders himself to Christ and to the Cross.

These rascals make demands on the Pope, sounding not unlike the radical Moslems as they seek to tell the successor of Peter his business. Note what Milingo says at their website: “Marriage is a sacrament and is a higher calling than celibacy.” This runs against the grain of ancient Christian tradition where celibate love was always deemed higher than sexual love. Most people will get married, but celibacy and perpetual virginity requires special graces and is a higher sacrifice. Their assertion impugns the long line of holy virgins and the religious sisters and nuns who have served the Church.

The audacity of these people know no bounds. Milingo writes: “We will work closely with the Holy Father, the Vatican offices, and other married priest organizations to once again make a married priesthood a normal part of the Church.” No they will not. They are now excluded from the Church and no longer have a voice in the true Church. Indeed, they have already set up parallel churches. Let them do what they want, the real Church is better off without them. Milingo writes: “I consecrated these four married men as Roman Catholic bishops in valid apostolic succession. The power and authority of a bishop comes from the very power and authority of his own sacramental consecration. I was consecrated by Pope Paul VI and, equipped with that sacramental power from him, I consecrated four married men in valid apostolic succession. These men are validly ordained Roman Catholic Bishops today and remain so in spite of Rome’s posture of denial of recognition.”

There you have it, Milingo consecrated them because he found their earlier ordinations dubious! But, he is wrong about Rome failing to give recognition. He was very much within the Vatican radar. That is why the Holy See has declared him and his four so-called bishops, excommunicated. Has Milingo gone insane, how can he call these licit ordinations? I am not even sure if they are valid. He says that they do not accept this excommunication, but that he returns it to the Pope. But the Pope only affirmed it as a reality; Milingo himself incurred it automatically by doing what he did. It is entirely his doing. He compares what he has done to the calling of the apostles in the early Church, but unlike them, he has separated himself from Peter, the Vicar of Christ. He draws apostles to himself, but not for the Lord. Milingo has made himself an anti-pope, or maybe worse, maybe he now pictures himself in the role of God?

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Archdiocese, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Marriage, Priests | Leave a comment »

BREAKWAY BISHOPS SEEK SUCCESSION THRU MILINGO!

Posted on September 26, 2006 by Father Joe

Reports are unclear and have used various words for what Archbishop Milingo did in Washington, DC last Sunday, saying that he either installed or ordained four men. One thing is for certain, he follows the rhythm of his own drum, no matter how out of sync with the universal Church.

What the news media is missing about the Milingo fiasco is that all the men that he ordained (or consecrated) were in their own estimations, already bishops! If so, why would they go through this ritual with the Zambian archbishop? Scuttlebut says the following:

1. Archbishop Milingo himself was concerned that some of the independent bishops with whom he had found affiliation might not be validly ordained as bishops.

2. These men themselves often go to great lengths to convince others that they are true bishops. However, one has to wonder if they are not guilt-ridden and unsure themselves? Now, with an authentic Roman Catholic archbishop backing up their pedigree, they can put doubt to the wind.

It is also interesting to note that our own George Augustus Stallings, Junior seems to be moving back toward a more “orthodox” Catholic theology. He talks about the sacrament of penance again, although back in the early 1990’s he dismissed it.

Who are these men who have flocked to Milingo?

GEORGE STALLINGS – Imani Temple, 1015 I St., Washington, DC 20002

George Augustus Stallings, Jr. was born in 1948 and like Milingo has an Asian Moonie wife. He was a priest for the Archdiocese of Washington, DC and for many years was the popular pastor of St. Theresa’s Church. He was known for his lavish lifestyle and expensive tastes. Ordained in 1974, he founded the Imani Temple African American Catholic Congregation in 1989. He claims to have been ordained a bishop in 1990 and elevated (himself) to archbishop in 1991. He told a young girl on the Oprah television show that blacks are God’s chosen people and that people of color will be resurrected first in the heavenly kingdom, a tenet I think he shares with some of the Black Muslims.

PETER PAUL BRENNAN – 151 Regent Place, West Hempstead, New York 11552

Peter Brennan also started out as a Catholic and he claims membership in a whole assortment of ecclesial communions, none of which is truly Catholic: The Ecumenical Catholic Diocese of the Americas, the African Orthodox Church and the Order of Corporate Reunion. He attended Catholic seminaries, like Stallings, and was a professed Religious before his defection from true Catholic unity. A member of CORPUS, the issue of a married priesthood is also high on his agenda…much more so than fidelity to the sacred promises he once made. His bio says that he was ordained a priest in 1972 by Bishop Marchenna. He had himself ordained again in 1974, and later as a bishop in 1978, 1979, and twice in 1987. Evidently many of these were conditional ordinations in case it did not take the first time…try, try again…bingo, Milingo (2006)!

PATRICK TRUJILLO – 6020 Newkirk Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047

Pat Trujillo belongs to the Old Catholic Church, you know the group that also ordains the gals, now– just like George Stallings! They might have a nice liturgy, but that alone did not spare them increasing doctrinal divergence and heresy. He claims to be the ordinary of the Archdiocese of Our Lady of Guadalupe, New Jersey (despite the name, we are talking about a very small operation)!

I do not know much more about him. Maybe that is for the best, now that he is one of Milingo’s pals.

JOSEPH J. GOUTHRO – 925 Felix Palm Avenue, North Las Vegas, NJ 89032

Joe Gouthro is a Las Vegas hack for quickie weddings! I guess it gives Catholic patrons who are married “out of the Church” that religious feeling that it is okay, despite being married before and not really practicing anyway.

Like all the rest, he makes a point of telling us that he was “ordained and consecrated in valid Apostolic Succession” by some peculiar group called Catholic Apostolic Church International– a bogus Catholic group if ever there was one. He advertises on his shingle that he “officiates Catholic, interfaith, non-denominational, cross cultural and civil weddings.” Ah, and you should see his rates!

His website reports: “He will customize your ceremony according to your wishes. The ceremony can be officiated according to the Roman Catholic Ritual or the Anglican Book of Commom Prayer.” Look at this, he plays both Anglican and Catholic priest…oops, I mean, bishop!

What are his real credentials? He served three cruise lines as a coordinator. He must be the LOVE BOAT Bishop! And forget about the requirement of a Church wedding, he says he will marry you anywhere…golf clubs…hotels…nature sites…even Elvis marriage chapels with neon light glory!

I guess he has reservations about his holy orders like the other men, so Milingo made him official.

I wonder if all the ordinations were conditional and not absolute? Were all of these guys ex-Catholics, and if so, how much did the excommunications matter?

All four men claim affiliation to the breakaway Synod of Old Catholic Churches. “We are not only validly ordained Catholic bishops, but we are ordained Roman Catholic bishops,” George Stallings explained.