Morality | Blogger Priest

Would a Good God Command the Murder of Children?

Posted on March 5, 2013 by Father Joe

BOYCE: How can God command his followers to kill children (1 Samuel) and still be the moral authority?

FATHER JOE:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will punish what Amalek did to the Israelites when he barred their way as they came up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and put under the ban everything he has. Do not spare him; kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

The Amalekites (descendants of Esau) had long been a dreaded enemy of God’s people. The curse of God against them in Exodus 17:14 was not unlike other biblical condemnations; i.e., the primordial Flood or the curse against the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The judgment of God targets not merely individuals, but as with divine favor, the larger community. Catholicism has retained this appreciation in regard to faith; it is both personal and corporate. We are all connected. The Amalekites resented the favor that God had shown Israel.

Some critics make a modified utilitarian argument, arguing that God orders or permits such taking of human life for a greater good. In this case, it would be the survival of his Chosen People. Less convincing but not discounted is the argument that the destruction of a people is for their own good, saving the souls of children by having them die before being corrupted by sin.

What are my thoughts about this? First, all life belongs to God since he is its author. This is the pervading truth that we must understand. It is on this account that God’s taking of our life is not reckoned as evil. Second, God meets us where we are. In other words, God does not reveal himself to us all at once but in a progressive fashion, over time, and culminating in Jesus Christ. The early Jews were little different from their blood-thirsty neighbors, and yet they were the people that God had chosen for himself and from which the Messiah or Christ would emerge.

The Egyptians had employed infanticide against the Jews and Moses was spared. Herod ordered the execution of the first born of Israel, and both Jesus and John the Baptist were spared. Just as in the argument about divorce and remarriage, our Lord tries to correct that which in their “hardness of hearts” they failed to understand. When God intervenes, he does so upon the side of life and justice.

The genuine Christian sensibility, and that of most post-Holocaust Jews, will never be comfortable with certain Old Testament scenes where the Chosen People interpret their own bloodlust as part of the divine will. The psalms used in the breviary and liturgy are edited so that we might not have to bless the one who bashes children to death against the rock (Psalm 137:9). We find this attitude abhorrent, and yet, rationalizations and modern deceits based upon human selfishness and not fidelity to God would tolerate and promote the murder of millions of children annually through abortion. Here is where many of the atheistic critics of religion on this point show their hypocrisy. Catholic teaching has developed over the centuries so as to emphasize that all human life is incommensurate and that innocent life must be protected.

Filed under: Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Catholic, Commandments, Discipleship, Jesus, Morality, Pro-Life, Religion | 1 Comment »

The Seven Beatitudes in the Book of Revelation

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Father Joe

Grace asks the following question: “Father, could you kindly explain the meanings of the Seven Beatitudes in the Book of Revelation?” Here is my reflection upon them.

Revelation 1:3 – “Blessed is the one who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the appointed time is near.”

Forming part of the greeting in this book of Scripture, it makes reference to God’s prophetic word that now is tthe appointed time. The time is near when the Lord will appear in his glory. Like so much of this book, it strikes an apocalyptic tone. Harkening back to the Gospel message and the promises of Christ, it signifies that time is short, we must make ready for the coming of the Lord.

Revelation 14:13 – “I heard a voice from heaven say, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ said the Spirit, ‘let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them.’”

The context here is the warning of three angels. Having admonished the pagan Romans to repent and worship the true God before it is too late; believers are consoled that if they remain faithful then their obedience or works will be a pleasing witness on their behalf before the divine tribunal.

Revelation 16:15 – “‘Behold, I am coming like a thief.’ Blessed is the one who watches and keeps his clothes ready, so that he may not go naked and people see him exposed.”

This beatitude is uttered at a more ominous part of the book. While there are certainly references to the persecution by pagan Rome, it has also been understood to point to a final reckoning. It is a time of false prophets and the infestation of demons. The antichrist wages war against the saints. After this blessing we are told that the kings will assemble in a place called Armageddon. True believers are urged to keep courage and know that even if all the powers of hell are waged against them and they only see death at every side, the Lord will come to save them. Christ has already conquered sin and death. But there will come a day when their effects will be undone. God’s people will not be abandoned.

The business about Christ coming as a thief at night is also often associated with our mortality. Even if we are not personally alive at the end of the world, every death is the end of our mortal sojourn. We need to be ready for our encounter before Christ and our particular judgment prior to the last or general judgment of all.

Revelation makes allusions to the ancient plagues in Egypt at the time of Moses. But we have an even greater liberator in Jesus Christ. We must be sentries for the Lord and stay awake. The reference to clothes is a reference to Genesis and the fall. After they had sinned, Adam and Eve hid themselves in shame because they realized they were naked. Apart from Christ we are all spiritually naked. As St. Paul tells us, we must be clothed in Christ. In the Lord there is no more shame or fear, just confidence and an ever-realized hope.

Revelation 19:9-10 – “Then the angel said to me, ‘Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.’ And he said to me, ‘These words are true; they come from God.’ I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, ‘Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers who bear witness to Jesus. Worship God. Witness to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’”

This beatitude is echoed in every Mass with the final elevation of the consecrated species; the priest says: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” A heavenly messenger is so filled with the divine presence that he must warn the visionary not to worship him. The scene is overwhelming. The previous verses speak of the bride who has been allowed to wear a clean linen garment, vesture which represents the “righteous deeds” or works of the holy ones or saints. This bride is the Church brought to perfection by her divine bridegroom, Christ. The wedding feast is the nuptial celebration of the heavenly kingdom. Christ is the Paschal Lamb who is now the Lamb of Victory. He has purchased the life of his bride with his own life. She has been washed clean by his blood. The angelic demand to worship God alone has been the faithful charge given the Church.

We are baptized into the spirit of prophecy, indeed we are reborn in the Spirit and anointed into Christ, priest, prophet and king. This theme of the marriage banquet and the Lamb of God is an integral element of Catholic worship. Our Lord made reference to himself as the Lamb of God, a truth realized between his Last Supper and the hill of Calvary. Every Mass is a celebration of the paschal mystery of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Again and again, we repeat these words every time we gather for worship. Jesus is made present and his sacrifice is realized or re-presented for believers today around the world. The mystery of Christ refuses to be locked in human history or any one place. It is a piece of eternity that intersects the linear time and world of mortal men, changing the meaning and direction of all salvation history.

Signified in his ministers, our Lord is the eternal High Priest and groom to his Church, his bride. Every Mass is a sacramental participation in the heavenly marriage banquet. The risen Christ comes to us in Holy Communion, giving us a share in the bounty from his table. One day sacred signs will pass, as will faith, and we will see face to face and know the one who has called us to share in his intimate everlasting love. This blessing is in regard to that union with God that Christ makes possible.

Revelation 20:6 – “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over these; they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for [the] thousand years.”

There are a number of elements that make this book difficult to interpret. It is filled with symbolism and numerology. There are references to the old pagan Rome and also to the final judgment. Chronology is often confused by exegetes, particularly those who read it with a bias against Catholicism or because they want to connect modern-day figures or countries to the symbolic elements. Keeping all this in mind, what can we say about this blessing? First, there will be no literal thousand year earthly reign of Christ. The mention of a thousand years is not literal but signifies the extended period between the chaining of Satan (Christ’s resurrection and victory over sin and death) and the end of days or end of the world. We were reborn in baptism. We were granted a share in eternal life. Becoming temples of the Holy Spirit, Christ lives in us. At the end of the first millennium, many believers took the number literally and thought that Christ would then surely come. But the Lord comes in his own good time. Second, the Church would rejoice that many more souls might be conceived and come to faith in Jesus and have a share in his resurrected life. Just as Moses prophesied when he said that he would have a nation of priests, along with prophet, we are anointed with chrism as priests. Our baptismal priesthood joins us together as a nation of priests.

Verses seven to ten which follow speak of Satan being released: “When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison. He will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. They invaded the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down from heaven and consumed them. The Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

There are been similar visions in the history of the Church. Although the story circulated for years from Vatican staff to others, one of the more influential tales has to do with Pope Leo XIII. Back on October 13, 1884, Pope Leo had concluded offering Mass. However, when he turned around, he sudden froze in place. Other authorities claimed he collapsed down the few steps and went into a death-like coma. He stayed this way for ten minutes or so. The attending clergy raced to his side in fear for his health. When he got moving again, apparently in some shock, they quickly took him to his private rooms. He sat down at his desk and wrote what has come to be called the Leonine Exorcism Prayer or the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. He would mandate that this prayer be appended to the “Low Mass” (unsung) of the Roman Rite.

What did the Pope experience during his mystical ecstasy? On the level of legend now, it is said that he claimed he could hear the voices of Satan and Christ in front of the altar and tabernacle. He described the voice of Satan as raspy and deep. The other was manly but soft and gentle.

Here is one version of the supposed dialogue:

The gruff voice boasted, “I can destroy your Church.”

The Lord challenged, “You can? Then go ahead and do so.”

Satan responded, “To do so, I need more time and more power.”

Jesus asked, “How much time? How much power?”

The devil said, “Allow me seventy-five to a hundred years, and a greater influence over those who will surrender themselves to my service.”

Christ consented, “So be it. You have the time; you will have the power. Do with them what you will.”

It is said the Pope claimed to have been shown a vision of demons released from Hell and with the purpose to corrupt souls and destroy the Church. Some suggest that this was all he experienced and the accompanying dialogue was a later embellishment. Fr. Domenico Pechenino, a priest who witnessed the event said as much in the 1940’s. He spoke about the look of terror on the Pope’s face, which had lost all color.

Now relegated to private devotion, although modern Popes have suggested but not demanded it’s restoration to the reformed liturgy, here is the edited or short version of Pope Leo’s prayer in vogue today:

“St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust (or cast) into hell Satan and (all) the other evil spirits who prowl (or wander or roam) about the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.”

What have we endured in the century since the vision? We have seen the devastation of the French Revolution, the rise and fall of European Communism, Hitler’s Germany and the extermination of six million Jews and millions of others besides, Communist dictatorships in Asia and the rise of radical militant Islam. We have seen the massive defection from faith and the eradication of Christian values from Western society. During this century homosexuality became a civil right and abortion became a legal choice. More people cohabitate and fornicate than coming to the marriage bed undefiled. Babylon has returned and the remnant of the saints is again persecuted. While not underestimating man’s capacity for evil, it certainly seems that the demonic has had free reign to numb sconsciences and to corrupt souls.

Revelation 22:7-9 – “‘Behold, I am coming soon.’ Blessed is the one who keeps the prophetic message of this book. It is I, John, who heard and saw these things, and when I heard and saw them I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me. But he said to me, ‘Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the message of this book. Worship God.’”

This blessing at the end of the book parallels similar beatitudes at the beginning and later in Revelation: 1:3 and 19:9-10. The message is essentially the same: this is a prophetic and spirit-filled message from God, it rests upon the authority of John, and an angel of God exhorts that all who receive this message abide in it seriously. The repeated stress on worship is not incidental. Along with the heavenly hosts, our very purpose and the general thrust of creation is to give glory to God. Such calls us to know, to love and to obey the Lord. Our worship in this world joins us to the communion of the saints and to the choirs of angels.

The principal activity in the heavenly kingdom is to give glory to God. Here we may find a hint to the deadly sin of Satan. He refused to bend the knee to the Son of God, the one who would be made incarnate. He could seek to slaughter the Lamb of God but he would never render worship. There is an old saying, “Pride goes before the fall.” True for men, it might have significance as well for the fallen angels or demons. And yet, the pride might not be so much between themselves as angelic creatures and the divine spirit as it is with the Second Person of the Trinity who would join himself to material creation. Knowing that angels are of a higher order or hierarchy in the created order, one could easily imagine that the devil would be incensed that an ensouled “animal” of flesh and blood should suddenly trump them and be so honored as to become God made man, reflecting the face of the Father in the Son. God became a man so that men by grace might share in divinity.

Revelation 22:12-15 – “‘Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.’ Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates. Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.”

While the reference to “dogs” was originally used by Jews about the Gentiles, here it means those outside the faith. We are called to be God’s children. “Sorcerers” are literally those seek to bypass divine providence and call upon the powers of the occult. The “unchaste” touches upon all those mentioned by St. Paul as excluded from the kingdom. Our Christianity demands a life of chaste and moderated love, safeguarding persons and not degrading others or ourselves with lust. Fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, etc. would fall into this category. “Murderers” refers to actual killers but also those who approve of taking innocent life, are passive to such acts. Those who betrayed Christians to the murderous persecution of Rome were murderers. Those who destroyed children as in abortion and infanticide (practiced by the pagans then and now) are also reckoned as murderers. The reference to “idol-worshippers” was a direct attack against the pagan religion of the Greeks and Romans. They could not worship idols of stone or the false deities they signified. Today, we would probably just argue that these deities did not exist in any form and that such worship was empty. However, it was the view of the ancient fathers that the deities of the pagans, while not gods, did have real existence as creatures, the demons. Thus, association with such false worship not only violated the Decalogue but placed one in bondage to Satan. The truth is also very important for the Church. Our Lord said that he came to testify to the truth. As for those who “love and practice deceit,” this is a stark warning to the believers of every age. We must be authentic. The word of a liar has no value. Just as the Lord keeps his promises, we must keep ours. God does not want part-time Christians. We must not simply go through the motions of discipleship. Every liar says with Peter in the courtyard of Caiaphas when asked about being a friend of Christ, “I tell you, I do not know the man!” Fortunately Peter had the opportunity to change his tune. Will we have time to do so?

As in the other beatitudes, we find the theme of Christ’s imminent return, judgment, reward to the just and punishment to evildoers. It has often amazed me that while some anti-Catholic apologists make so much of faith over works, the truth is that the two elements are intimately connected. It is not enough to say one believes. Faith needs to be realized with a movement of the will. There must be a genuine love of God that flows over into charity for neighbor. Christ is the eternal Word of God, the First and the Last. All creation must be consummated in him. The elect of God are depicted as in robes of white, washed clean by the blood of the Lamb. The damage of the old Adam has been healed by the new. Note that while original sin was connected to the forbidden fruit of a tree in the Garden, here too there is mention of a tree, the Tree of Life. This tree makes possible our return to a state of grace and communion with God. What is this Tree of Life? More recently Pope Benedict XVI has spoken about it as the saving Cross. Sin and death came into the world from a living tree; forgiveness and life were restored through the dead tree of the Cross. In other words, the saving work of Christ in his crucifixion has eternal consequences. Nothing will ever be the same. As pilgrims in this world, the fruits of that Living Tree are given to us as saving food in the Eucharist, rations from the banquet table of the Promised Shore and Kingdom. Immediately following the beatitude, there is an acknowledgment of those who are lost on the outside.

We are reminded of the foolish bridesmaids who in the parable allowed their oil to run out and were left outside the marriage banquet. We read in Matthew 25:11-13: “Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.’ Therefore, stay awake, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

There are also other teachings of Christ that refer to such judgment:

“I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth” (Matthew 8:11-12).

“Then Jesus went from that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, ‘Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.’ But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.’ He said in reply, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But the woman came and did him homage, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ He said in reply, ‘It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.’ Then Jesus said to her in reply, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed from that hour” (Matthew 15:21-28).

This last quotation connects with the word “dogs,” following this beatitude, actually a word that might be translated even more crudely. It would remind us that even the dogs might come inside from the cold and share from the table, if there is genuine faith, love and obedience. But the time grows short and soon it may be too late. There is urgency throughout these blessings and they are weighed against the possible terrible consequences of the curse and judgment.

Filed under: Bible, Church, Discipleship, Eschatology, Jesus, Morality, Prophets, Repentance, Resurrection, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

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 »

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 »

Religious Liberty, Traditionalists & Obedience

Posted on August 28, 2012 by Father Joe

The SSPX has made no secret of its opposition to the teachings about religious liberty both espoused at Vatican II and in the recent USCCB campaign against government intrusion.

We have faced many challenges to our religious liberty. At one time Catholics were forbidden entry into certain colleges like William and Mary. Catholic churches were burned and our worship was curtailed. Later there was the issue of public education and the reading of Protestant bibles. Catholic schools emerged to insure the faith of generations of children.

In more recent times there has been the issue of prayer in schools, the celebration of religious holidays and public symbols, and the status of the Sabbath or Sunday blue laws. The emphasis has shifted from a preference given to the Protestant faith over the Catholic, to an atheistic secular humanism that is hostile to all faith. Today, there is a concerted effort to force the Church to compromise on matters like homosexuality, artificial contraception, and abortion. Will the Church face charges of hate-speech for opposing same-sex unions and homosexual acts? Will the Church be forced to pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization in healthcare plans? How far will this fight go and how strong and courageous will we find Catholic churchmen. And will the Catholic people stand with their shepherds or with an anti-Catholic modernity? We would expect that traditionalists would be of one mind with conservatives on such matters; but such is not always the case.

The Church would not argue that religious liberty is absolute or that it “necessarily” applies to all creeds equally. However, the principle of religious liberty and freedom of conscience are critical to the Church’s understanding of human dignity. The more a religion reflects the objective order and spiritual truth, the more that faith must remain free from coercion. Mormons once taught polygamy and were rightfully corrected by the federal government. Satanism is restricted on military bases because occult services in the nude conflict with the military code of conduct. Sometimes peculiar things are tolerated in other religions so that the Church herself might benefit from non-interference, matters like the pacifism of Quakers and rigid alcoholic temperance. Then there are acts that cause quite a bit of debate, matters like snake-handling, the prohibition of blood transfusions (Jehovah Witnesses) and interdictions toward inter-racial dating. However, there are also clear limits as with ritual euthanasia, human sacrifice, bondage or trafficking, and the abuse of children.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary. (Dignitatis Humanae #7)

Given the persecution of the Church in England, the separation of the Church and state was interpreted as a way to protect our interests. While an ideal state is one where the Church and state are in harmony, history has proven that such unity is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain. There was also the unpleasant side-effect that with the Reformation, the creed of the land followed the local prince. While such was legally tolerated in Europe to prevent bloodshed, this arrangement was very unfair to Catholics who felt abandoned by Rome and a Catholic Europe. Religious liberty in the United States permitted the Church to expand at a rate that surprised even the Holy See. Marylanders rejoiced to be liberated from the penal laws. Our Catholic school system grew to be second to none. It must be added that the separation of Church and state never meant a disavowal of traditional religious values or culture. Such is the extreme that we see today from organizations like the ACLU and the liberal People for the American Way. The American state was viewed by many of our founders as a Christian one, not atheistic as some contend today.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (Dignitatis Humanae #2)

If everyone were Catholic, we might presume that the public values and laws would reflect this fact. But states that are largely Catholic do not always remain sympathetic to the Church. Mexico in the 1920’s would be a case in point. The rupture of the Reformation took place in what were formerly Catholic nations. Never underestimate original sin and the hunger of men for power.

While we might hope and work for the day when earthly realms would recognize Christ and his Church, we leave such eventualities to divine providence. Anything else would be a pelagian nod to earthly utopias. Our emphasis is always upon the kingdom of Christ which is ushered in by God’s grace.

Some critics, particularly within the SSPX, would criticize the model of religious liberty taught by the late Fr. John Courtney Murray. They go so far as to fault its promulgation at Vatican II as the source for global apostasy and secularization. However, Father Murray simply gave voice to what he saw as the American experiment. I would argue that it was not an ingredient in the subsequent conflict with modernity, Vatican II or no Vatican II.

It is simplistic to demonize the council or to give a heightened importance to the pre-conciliar Church that it did not possess. The council was an attempt by the Church to respond to a changing world. Not everything worked out and many purposely distorted the meaning and purpose of the gathering. However, the world’s bishops did gather, it was a legitimate council, and the Pope ratified it. Those who utterly reject it will find themselves in opposition to a crucial Church teaching— that the universal Magisterium so gathered is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. It is no wonder that those who oppose the council are neither united to the majority of the world’s bishops nor in juridical union with the Holy See. There are only two options open to critics of the council. Either there was a misapplication of the council by those who invented a “spirit of Vatican II” or there is no supernatural agency protecting ecumenical councils, the Magisterium and the Pope. It is for this reason that castigating the council is a very dangerous thing for a “faithful” Catholic to do. It leads either to a Catholicized variation of Protestantism or to atheism.

It is true that Cardinal Ottaviani shared a number of concerns about the council and his view regarding Church/state relations. It is no secret that this holy prelate was unhappy, especially given that his schema for the council was brushed aside and replaced. But he was only one man and in the end he was obedient. The fact remains that the majority of the world’s bishops and the Pope signed off on the council documents. The issue here is clearly one of ecclesiology. Pope Benedict XVI was at the council and yet critics would try and tell him what was what. The arrogance in all this is insufferable.

Church social teaching cannot be merely theoretical but must reflect the pragmatic reality of the world where we find ourselves. While there are stable elements, the political teaching reacts to the world around us: the disappearance of monarchies, the rise of democracies, capitalism and the world economy, the threat of communism, and increased secularism. Today, we would also add the effect of technology and communication, as well as the rise of fundamentalist Islam and their lack of tolerance toward the Church. The Church is seeking for ways to grow and arguing for its right to exist, no matter how societies might change.

Some critics contend that the “post-Vatican II Church” is apparently afraid to sanction those teaching heresy or promoting immorality; however, it is quick to enforce “disciplinary rules.” They resent that Archbishop Lefebvre was disciplined for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate while heretical priests remain in “good standing” to teach heresy and to actively dissent. I would argue that it is no less scandalous for traditionalists to dismiss the guidance of the Holy See. More than discipline is at stake but a fundamental view regarding ecclesiology and divinely appointed authority. The scandal is worse for those who feign fidelity to the Holy See while failing truly to obey the successor of St. Peter. No one expects fidelity from the liberal dissenters. Their only deceit is that they might still claim to be Catholic; but that is a shallow lie through which all but the most ignorant can penetrate. I would also argue for a heavier hand by the Church but I am neither a bishop nor the pope. I am sure the shepherds have their reasons for what they do. I suspect that the most liberal dissenters just do not respond to sanctions. The issue is not whether leftist dissenters have been properly punished; but, rather have breakaway traditionalists displayed sufficient contrition to have the last of their sanctions removed? I would place the highest gravity or wrong with the SSPX. They should have known better. Who knows what good their presence within the Church would have merited these past forty years? Instead, they abandoned her and circled the wagons. The consecration of bishops against the will of the Holy See threatened a parallel church. It is no minor crime. It deserves penance prior to absolution. I think this is the ultimate holdup. They can quickly find fault in Rome but wrongly imagine that they are immaculate and had no other recourse. What they did was wrong. It was a grievous sin. The Pope removed their excommunication, not out of justice but from charity. Pope Benedict XVI is a gentle man where I would have given them ultimatums. I am not convinced that the SSPX will ever return to juridical unity. That is my opinion and I hope I am wrong. Those who too closely align themselves with them, even if just for an anachronistic love of the old liturgy, may find themselves ultimately outside the lawful Catholic Church. They will join the Orthodox churches of the East in their schism from Peter, the ROCK of the Church and Vicar of Christ.

Certainly the license to teach theology has been stripped from numerous liberal theologians. Many have faced discipline and censure, such as: Fr. Leonardo Boff, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Matthew Fox, Fr. Hans Kung, Sister Margaret Farley, and Sister Elizabeth Johnson. The latter two were quite recent and Sister Johnson was my academic advisor many years ago in seminary. I have read all her books and concur with the evaluation of the U.S. bishops about the improper use of metaphor. It is so peculiar that liberal dissenters grieve about their treatment from the “right-wing” Holy See and yet certain arrogant traditionalists cry like babies that they are the only ones getting rough treatment. I would give them all a swift kick in the pants!

While there is much talk about a silent schism and a liberal fifth column of bishops who oppose Rome while weak bishops look on passively, I would include all four of the SSPX bishops as still another column opposed to the Magisterial teaching office and the living Pope. Those who castigate the council and Rome will become sedevacantists, mark my words. Liberal bishops are dying off and yet many of them would still bend the knee to Rome. The SSPX bishops have made themselves autonomous and the arbiters of all things Catholic. They want Rome to bend to them! Only the Magisterium under the Pope has the authority to interpret past Magisterial documents. The wolves are coming from every side; yes even some of the so-called sheep-dogs may revert to their wolfish ancestry. Defenders of the SSPX are wrong to say that four bishops (who are even fighting among themselves) can trump the Pope and 5,000 bishops who teach and minister in union with him! Sorry, but they are very much mistaken.

Addressing traditionalists, the Pope has given you the freedom to worship with the Tridentine Mass. You should be satisfied with that, say your prayers, raise your families, and steer clear of critiquing a lawful council of Holy Mother Church and the Holy See. Do not join the renegades, no matter what pretense to holiness or devotion they might exhibit.

I love our traditions. I see continuity in our faith. There is no pre-Vatican II Church. There is no post-Vatican II Church. There are various disciplines and rites, but old or new, there is only the Mass— the sacrifice of Calvary from which we receive the “bread of life” and the chalice of salvation”— the real presence of the risen Lord.

But I have no stomach for trouble-makers on the left or right. Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope. He is Peter. He is the Vicar of Christ. If you want to be saved, be subject to him and to those bishops in union with him— period.

Filed under: Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Fortnight for Freedom, Magisterium, Morality, Politics, Pope, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | 10 Comments »

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 »

Heading to the Beaches & Modesty

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Father Joe

We are coming up on the warm months of the year and soon our people will be heading out to the beaches. It is opportune to discuss again how we dress and what we communicate by our outward appearance. As one critic rightly remarked, despite what people wear, it is good to get to know the inner person. Yes, but of course, there are many people we will never really know personally. Models in magazines and catalogues would be an example. The image may be all that we will ever encounter. Are they not saying something about their own self-respect (or lack thereof) by how they appear and how they allow themselves to be used? Strangers on a beach would be another such example. Further, visual markers have a certain staying power. We can say that dress (or undress) does not matter; but the truth is that it matters a great deal.

Girl watching on the beach is a particularly volatile issue. People get mad or roll their eyes when I offer criticism. It would be one thing if the men looked upon the women as one might a Michelangelo masterpiece, giving praise to God for the wonders of his creation and such beauty. However, men are not angels, and not infrequently, the sight of scantily clothed women is an occasion for sin— fantasies that lead to adultery in the heart, self-pollution, casual sex outside of marriage and sometimes crime. The question also arises as to what is or is not pornographic. Women would probably be better covered by ordinary underwear than by many styles of swimwear. Are men generally comfortable with showing off their wives, girlfriends and daughters in skimpy attire?

Of course, the clothing of the body is only one element to modesty. It includes dress, posture, speech, etc. Young women were once taught etiquette in such things. I can still recall a teacher talking to girls in my grammar school class about how to sit, with legs crossed. The religious sisters tell me that they were always at the girls about rolling up their skirts to their school uniforms. Even certain hair styles were regarded as somewhat provocative, although I never really understood this element. It finds some reference in Scripture and is the rationale behind the Catholic mantilla, the nun’s veil and the Islamic head covering. As I understand it, in Church circles, a woman’s hair-covering at Mass was to obscure her beauty sufficiently so that men might not be distracted from Eucharistic worship. It was also done as an ancient custom to honor God. However, I have never been one to find hair overtly sexual and as a serious threat to propriety. Maybe this is different for others?

The criticism might be offered that I have targeted the responsibility of women to be modest and have omitted men. I think there is a different psychology here. Both men and women are sexual beings, but we are not wired the same. While it is often wildly exaggerated, most men do not need much of a catalyst to think about sexual things. One girl told me that she liked to flirt but not to worry because she always stopped before she got the boys’ motors running. I quickly explained, “Sorry, but you need to know the boys’ motors are ALWAYS running!” It is no secret that pornography and the sex industry focus more heavily upon the female form than the male. In any case, presuppositions and possible stereotypes aside, men are also called to be chaste and modest. Tight fitting clothes or baggy pants that seem to be falling off are problematical. Speedo swim-shorts for men strike me also as unsightly and vulgar. Preoccupations with men’s butts can be for women a violation of the custody of the eyes. The groin-grasping dance of the late Michael Jackson would be evidence of an immodest gesture from men. Men and women must work together to preserve modesty and the many wonderful values which flow from it.

I will save the issue of how people dress when going to church for another day, after I take another blood pressure pill.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Modesty, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 5 Comments »

Discussion About Modest Swimsuits #2

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Father Joe

The following is a discussion that ensued following the post entitled:

MODEST SWIMSUITS AT LAST!

PRISCILLA:

My girls and I make our own swimwear and it is very much like what the Islamic women wear. Here are some more links, Christians and others are already beginning to cater to this untapped market:

As for most Muslim swimwear, I wonder if it is easy to swim in long dresses. I have tried and get fatigued pretty quickly.

You have to fight some of the administrators at pools about modest swimwear. They argue that we wear more clothes for swimming than other females do with their day-to-day clothing! One time we had to go to court because of a rule against public dress clothes in pools. They did not believe that what we wore was for swimming. We go for the fun and exercise, not to burn ourselves or to offer cheap strip shows at the community center.

FATHER JOE:

I do not know what to say? I certainly support modest swimwear, but I thought that most would regard the styles offered as a tad much. Maybe I am wrong? Christian families are already buying into swimwear styles not dissimilar from that worn by Muslims. I did not know about this. God bless them and their efforts.

4HisCHURCH:

Modest swim wear is difficult to find (in mainstream stores). Since few, if any women have model-perfect bodies, never mind the need for dressing modestly, there are many “of a certain age” who just skip the idea of bathing suits altogether. I am glad there are some companies who manufacture “regular” swim wear with such features as shorts/skirts and tank-top like straps. I applaud any efforts in this area.

JANE:

Father, I agree with you and think the Muslim swimsuits are a little much. Like many young women I know, I managed to find a high-necked swimsuit and I wear shorts with it on the rare occasion when I visit a public pool or beach, but being covered to the wrists and ankles is, I think, over-the-top. Additionally, the baggier pants shown in one of those photos seem like they could be dangerous, hampering a swimmer’s leg movements underwater.

KNIT:

To tell you the truth, as a woman and a believer, modesty is a complex issue to me. Sometimes I find believers preach a style of clothing which, instead of being dignified (fit for the daughter of a King), is ugly. It seems to preach that there’s something inherently sinful in being woman, as if the fact that I am a woman needs to be hidden. I believe I am responsible for not creating unreasonable occasions of temptation for my brothers. But I do not believe that anything I can do can replace their own care to flee the temptations that rise from their own heart. Clothing that is well-fitting, pretty and flattering, without being indecent or too flashy to make me the center of attentions, glorifies the Lord. Every woman, of every shape, is beautiful and should dress like she believes that! I believe in looking nice, not cheap like a harlot or flashy like I am a billionaire showing off— I mean nice and beautiful. I believe that this would be approved by our Lord, who liked eating and drinking; who liked everything which was healthily fun and human. He told us to fast interiorly, not showing it. “When you fast, wash your head and perfume yourself, so that no-one knows you are fasting.” Sometimes dressing in shapeless long clothing can be a matter of pride, not of modesty.

On swimsuits, I have a personal pet-peeve with the “modesty” discussion. One-piece swimsuits only fit nicely shaped women whose upper and lower halves have similar sizes. When those halves differ by more than two sizes, the best idea, in my humble opinion, is to try to find a more or less modest bikini/tankini where each piece is sold separately. I am sorry, but that’s the only option for some women. (I am lucky that I can wear some one-piece swimsuits, but not all women can).

And what about men, do people forget that women also have lustful thoughts? Why is it OK for a man to take off his shirt when doing heavy jobs? If I have a lustful thought, it’s my responsibility. He is perfectly justified in taking off his shirt because of his job but when a woman needs to breastfeed a baby everyone is outraged?

THERESE:

Personally I like these swimsuits:

http://www.swimmodest.com/

You can swim just fine in them and they are modest, too. They are also really cute! I can also testify that they look better in real life than in the pictures. All my five daughters and myself have one. They sell out really fast so order early in the season.

FATHER JOE:

I am no expert, but I would tend to agree with you about the suits to which you link, Therese. However, while they might seem fine to us, I suspect they would never pass muster from our Muslim friends–no headgear and too much leg. I wonder what such issues say about our view of the human person and women in particular. Extremes either exploit or condemn God’s handiwork. I suppose the modest middle-ground is where struggling Christians would seek practicality while celebrating the goodness of God in his creation.

SHEREEN:

Hi, there, and the answer is, no, the straight leg pants do not hinder swimming. I wear my own “resort pants,” which are the straight leg pants (or the ‘baggier’ pants as you refer to them).

I can attest that they don’t ride up in the water, they are very thin and light (a couple of my customers have already told me it feels like they are not wearing anything), and it does not weigh down or hamper the swimmer.

However, I will mention that from a safety point of view, anything that covers the feet can be dangerous and hamper the swimmer. So, if the pant legs are too long, then in the water the pant legs will cover the feet and prevent efficient kicking. That’s why my company, “splashgear”, produces pants that fall at the ankle, but not below it.

Again, the straight leg pants do not hamper the swimmer as I and others can attest.

By the way, i was quite surprised to receive an OVERWHELMING response to the AP article. I never realized just how much non-Muslims wanted/needed full coverage swimwear. My sales and catalog requests to non-Muslims just sky-rocketed after the AP article came out, and I received so many positive and encouraging e-mails from mainstream individuals. Wow!

Thank you for your time.

Shereen Sabet – SPLASHGEAR
7445 Seastar Drive, Suite # 8, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648-2271, USA
http://www.splashgearusa.com

MISS KOERNER:

Hello, I am a young woman who was searching the web for a modest bathing suit for my senior trip to Florida coming up, and stumbled on to this page. I must say that as a God-loving 18 year-old woman, I was disgusted by those suits. They are not the least bit fashionable. I believe that God has called women to be respectful of men, but he did not ask us to look like them! Personally, I am proud God made me a young woman. I don’t want to look like a man. I believe that I can dress modestly without pretending to be something I am not. A modest full-piece or full coverage tankini can be less attention-grabbing than a young woman in one of those outfits.

I think young women like me would be more receptive toward the Church’s efforts to promote modesty if we were not made to feel ashamed of the bodies God himself created.

FATHER JOE:

Finding a modest swimsuit is a real issue, but I am not a prude about such things, even if I do avoid beaches and coed pools. I am glad that you are happy to be a female and you should not be ashamed of how God has fashioned you. I have no opinion about swimsuits other than they should be in good taste, not immodest, and safe to wear. God bless!

JAK:

I’m a young teenage boy and I personally think that most secular bathing suits are immodest and not fit for wearing in public. I personally feel betrayed when my “Christian” friends wear these immoral clothes on retreats or when just hanging out when we are supposed to have and display much higher values than our non-Christian counterparts. It’s been a standing debate between my friends and me that leads to bitterness sometimes; but, I really appreciate that there are still people out there who do wear modest clothing and bathing suits.

JENNY:

Are you kidding me?

PAMELA:

Hello, you might consider my swimwear line as another alternative. I offer retro/vintage styled one-piece bathing suits that have more coverage.

http://www.poppiswim.com

ROSE:

Yes, some of these are rather much. I’d recommend L.L. Bean and Land’s End catalogs for more modest style swimsuits and clothing in general. They are a tad expensive, but maybe you are paying for the extra material! Just “Google” either name for their websites.

FATHER JOE:

many of the styles at Poppina Swim seem quite modest but practical.

KATRINA:

I’m sorry, but isn’t one of the main points of being modest not drawing attention to yourself? I find that these Muslim-inspired swimsuits draw a lot more attention than a modest one piece or tankini. The desire to be modest should be an act of humility, not pride.

SW:

You should all try a top free or nudist beach for a day or two and get over it. Christians use the word modesty or indecency when they really mean body shame.

FATHER JOE:

And obviously you know no shame. Christians are well aware of fallen human nature.

SW:

Clothing does not make you superior to someone who is naked.

FATHER JOE:

“Superior” is a strange word to use. I would prefer the phrase, “more decent.”

SW:

This is nothing but Puritanism and has little to do with Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

FATHER JOE:

You obviously have little knowledge and/or respect for the Bible which speaks in many places about being clothed and modest, both in the Old and New Testaments. The Koran and the Islamic faith give their adherents many rules about dress. You really do not know what you are talking about!

SW:

What is a real shame is that you have to spend the rest of your lives hating your bodies.

FATHER JOE:

This is a big assumption on your part. It may be that Christians so reverence the body as an expression of the person and as God’s great masterpiece that we clothe it out of respect and to protect it from degradation.

SW:

Why do males get to take off their shirts at the beach and females do not?

FATHER JOE:

My mother used to fret with my father to keep a shirt on outside. I suppose it is somewhat cultural. Certain places of the world, as in parts of Africa, women may indeed go topless without Church condemnation. However, such is not the way with Western culture. Here we are not talking about a mother nursing her child but a provocative use of nudity.

SW:

It is all to dominate and make money off of females.

FATHER JOE:

Women are wrongly exploited that is true. But rampant nudity would enhance such exploitation. The tragic truth in some cases is that women allow themselves to be abused and treated as meat instead of as persons with sacred dignity and immeasurable value.

SW:

It never used to be like this. Both sexes wore little or no clothing throughout 98-99% of human history.

FATHER JOE:

You know this for a fact? Given that modern man emerged as predominate after the ice ages, I doubt that our ancestors ran around naked. Clothing is not just for style, but for protection, too.

SW:

The Church and State make a lot of money off of your shame. The Church uses nudity as a device to lay guilt on everyone about sex.

FATHER JOE:

And how precisely does the Church make money off of this? If anything, hedonists get angry and leave the Church, taking their wallets and purses with them; although without pockets, where does one place a wallet? As for guilt, it has to do with God’s commandments and the natural law. Your argument is with the Creator, not the Church. If people have sex outside of marriage, they should feel guilty, because they are guilty.

SW:

The State gets large sums of revenue from the sale of pornography, while saying that they have passed laws to fight it.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, so does the telephone company and, oops, so do the owners of nude beaches. What, you thought men went to such beaches for the fishing? There is enough hypocrisy to go around. Nude beaches are also exploited by the culprits of pornography. Heck, today anyone with a digital camera or picture-taking phone becomes part of the problem.

SW:

Females should at least go top free, just like males do. I’ll bet that if you did for 10 or 15 minutes you would probably do so for the rest of your life.

FATHER JOE:

I do not think that most women would even want to do such an outrageous thing. Given their sensitivity about appearance, most women like the way that clothes make them look.

SW:

Turn back the clock to way it used to be. Start asking the males around you why their chests are considered normal and decent and women’s are not.

FATHER JOE:

Could it have something to do with the difference in how men perceive and respond to women’s breasts over how women generally react to most men’s chests?

SW:

It would be great if every State would encourage females to go one summer top free. Most would never put that top or one- piece back on.

FATHER JOE:

Pleeeease! Do not make me laugh! You would have states mandate nudity? You are like the Taliban in reverse. They would require women to cover up and you would urge them to strip. Is this comment a joke? Is this really a male poster? You cannot be serious!

MICHELLE:

Wonder why we aren’t born naked, God hates it so much. OH WAIT! WE ARE BORN NAKED! GO FIGURE…once your “BUMPY” parts show you become indecent hahaha you people are fools. This is NOT a male posting. Father Joe, I think you’re a [deleted]. Reading your post made my stomach turn.

FATHER JOE:

What God creates is good and most Catholics are not prudes. The post was done partially in humor, although the issue of modesty is important– not because the human body is bad but because of the effects from original sin and concupiscence.

MELISSA:

Question: Are bumpy parts prohibited on just females or males too? I think it should go both ways, don’t you? Therefore, I must recommend that all overweight men wear bras… It’s just fair. And all men must also wear swimsuits to their ankles. Cuz we all might get turned on by the “bumpy part” in an ankle, right? What happened to the freedom that Jesus offers us? I’m sorry, this just is not a clear representation of what Jesus came to proclaim. I believe in modesty, but not legalism. Good luck.

ANON:

Check out http://www.modest-swimwear.net.

TIMONIOUS:

Who told them they were Catholic? Have they be eating of the tree of knowledge of which God had forbidden?

MS. D:

As someone mentioned, that clothing is grossly unfashionable. I don’t think it is necessary to go to the extreme to be considered modest. Also, I don’t think anyone needs to purchase your clothing to appear modest. A tank top and shorts can be purchased at any store. And not every one of them reveals cleavage or is unbearably tight. If you are really concerned about what girls wear, and consider yourself a practical person, rather than choosing the styles you prefer consider taking the time to listen to the girls that might consider wearing them. I hope whoever looks at your website knows that they don’t have to look like that to be modest.

LORILLA:

Does your wife wear these swimsuits or is she too embarrassed?

FATHER JOE:

Whose wife?

HENRY:

What some regard as modest, others find titillating or even fetishistic. The simplest way to eliminate eroticism of this kind is 100% nudity, Scandinavian style. What is familiar will not excite.

As a Catholic myself, I thought Catholicism was primarily concerned about bringing love to the world through the Risen Christ.

FATHER JOE:

I would still make the case for Christian modesty.

AL:

Joe, that’s sick. If you can’t handle swim attire, don’t go to the beach.

FATHER JOE:

Who is Joe?

BARBARA:

(God) forbid – just stay out of the sun and off the beach. Did not God design the human body? Are we to be ashamed and deny the beautiful creation called the human body? I think those people extolling the ‘virtues’ of modest swimwear must have their minds in the gutter. Methinks one doth protesteth too much!

BARBARA:

Muslim shmuslim. Please women, WHY would you want to propel us backward? This has NOTHING to do with religion – when will you realize this is about male dominance – stupid old men who want to feel powerful and seek to do this through the subjugation of women. Burn the burkha!

JEZZEBELLE:

If you want to save your young Catholic boys from temptation send them with a priest for 5 minutes! I bet they won’t want anything to do with sex for years! Maybe if you weren’t a dirty old man “bumpy parts” wouldn’t bother you so much.
Email: immodestwh–e@carolina.rr.com [This is not the actual email. I have deleted two letters from the attached vulgar name.]

FATHER JOE:

Am I supposed to take seriously a girl who calls herself Jezzebelle and Immodest Wh–e? Please get help and healing. I will pray for you.

JEZZEBELLE:

Why not? You take your crack pot beliefs seriously. The body is beautiful; the baggy crap used to cover God’s beautiful creation is not. The more you cover, the farther away we are from where God wanted us to be before Adam and Eve found the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Basically you’re telling women that because men are tempted they need to cover up. It doesn’t sound like my problem if I want to wear a bikini. I’m not going to go to hell so save your prayers for someone who agrees with everything you say.

FATHER JOE:

Jezze, the post was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I am surprised so many people read it as being totally serious. In other words, I think the baggy full-body suits are a bit much, even as they remind us of the importance of modesty. The body is beautiful. It is a marvel of design and shows the masterful hand of the Creator who fashioned it. Women should be concerned about how they dress, and willing to help men to be chaste, as they should also be. But there are swimsuits that both reveal a woman’s beauty and form while not catering to the pornographic. However, I am no expert in such things and would be the last person to catalogue what fashions are or are not acceptable. I never said you were going to hell. God bless and keep you in his love.

JEZZEBELLE:

And by the way, my mom gave me when I came out of what you are so concerned about covering efficiently.

FATHER JOE:

Are you a kid? The post about modesty had a point, but the comparisons to Islamic “baggy” dress and the like was tainted by parody. In other words, you may have taken it too seriously. [However, we should respect the choice of Moslems to select clothes which they feel honors God and preserves modesty.] I would not condemn the human body. It is God’s creation and whatever God creates is good. Modesty is simply a way to show respect to persons, particularly given the effects of original sin. Jezze, you should not label yourself as a harlot. Demand respect for yourself and show it to others. Thank God for your health and beauty. Enjoy your youth, but do not allow yourself to be exploited by anyone. God loves you. I will pray for you.

MICHAEL:

They’re too revealing.

FATHER JOE:

HERE IS A NEW LINK ON THE SUBJECT:

Saint Joseph’s Lilies

RAELEIGH:

“With strength of numbers, our families and girls can admonish the other so-called Catholic females on the beach: ‘Have you no shame for exposing yourselves in underwear? Protestants, I mean Prostitutes wear more clothes than you!’”

HA HA HA, You are so highly amusing…not. That comment is extremely offensive and not the least bit amusing. You are a [deleted] who claims to be under the direction of God. Your attempt at humor [deleted] and I hope that [deleted] with all this [deleted] you are spreading.

FATHER JOE:

Put some clothes on and stop being so rude and vulgar. Immodesty is a problem that needs to be highlighted.

YENNI:

I love the range of Muslim swim suits from ZEHBA!

I have chosen one of their floral designs, which I believe to be a better choice for moderate women. I have bought it from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

You can see many designs at their website.

http://www.zehba.com

C. P. C.:

A More Practical Alternative – My brother dresses his daughters in long board shorts. Yes, the kind male surfers wear and manage to find a way to do so very low slung and immodestly. Not so with these girls, though. For a top they again wear the surfer’s rash guard or ‘skin.’ These outfits look ‘cool’ in a surfer kind of way, allowing the girls to be very active in and out of the water, protecting them from the sun and lewd glances.

SLIGHTLY CONFUSED:

Dear Fr. Joe, as a young woman desiring to be modest to aid her brothers in Christ, is the best option to forego public co-ed swimming? Why should I reveal parts of myself at the beach I never reveal elsewhere in public? Seeking the help of a father, Slightly Confused

FATHER JOE:

A nice modest swimsuit, yes even with legs and arms exposed, would probably suffice. But really, I am no authority to tell girls what to wear. Your intention is to enjoy the beach and to go swimming. Mingling with nice guys and gals is also okay. A few young women I trust on this matter have some good suggestions and links. Here is their blog page:

Saint Joseph’s Lilies

SPARKLING SNOW BABY:

Hi, Father Joe, I found your article when looking online for modest swimwear for myself and my little girls. It took me a moment to realize your article was tongue in cheek, but after that it really tickled me. I felt sad when I saw some of the vitriolic replies you received. Some people truly cannot take a joke. I just wanted to say thank you for trying to address a sensitive topic in a humorous way, and for the caring manner in which you answered the obviously wounded people who responded with those posts.

One thing that I don’t recall anyone mentioning in a post is the freedom modesty brings. When I wear modest clothes, I’m more comfortable and can jump and play with my kids without thinking “gee, what’s hanging out now?” I want my girls to have the same freedom. And I don’t think my mind is “in the gutter”!

For those worried about fashion, I would suggest they try asking their kids. My husband wants our girls to be modest, but he laughed at me when I suggested we purchase suits for them from a modesty site. He then showed the pictures to our oldest, age 9, expecting her to loudly refuse. (She is quite vocal and opinionated.) Imagine his surprise when she became really excited, and asked us to buy her one right away. Honestly, our little ones have a sense of what is right. They don’t want to feel exposed and naked in front of strangers. Get a clue, people! God bless you Father Joe!

A Protestant 🙂

To Be Continued…

Filed under: Discipleship, Modesty, Morality, Sexuality | 4 Comments »

Biblical Principles of Marriage

Posted on March 25, 2012 by Father Joe

On Saturday, March 24, I gave a talk on the Biblical Foundations of Marriage at the PreCana Classes held at St. Mary of the Assumption in Upper Marlboro, MD. Some of the notes are give in the immediately previous posts. There is a joke that if you get two ministers in a room, you will get three different interpretations of Scripture. Given that biblical interpretation is so volatile these days, I first gave the gathering my five basic presuppositions. Next, I gave the ten basic principles of marriage from Scripture.

Presuppositions As we Begin

1. The Scriptures are inspired by God and teach truth.

2. We must have the mind of the Church in how Scripture is interpreted.

3. The Bible is not a marriage manual.

4. Better understanding of Scriptural truth comes through a contextual approach.

5. The truth about marriage in the Bible is revealed in a progressive way, culminating in the New Testament.

A Few Basic Biblical Principles

While the Bible is not a manual for marriage, there are some basic principles we can derive from God’s inspired Word. Here are a few:

1. Men and women were made for each other. Most men and women are called to marriage.

2. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. They pledge themselves to each other in vows made in the sight of God.

3. The husband is the head of the home and the wife is its heart.

4. While the Bible speaks of the wife’s submission to her husband, there is mutuality in this surrender since the husband is commanded to practice sacrificial love for her, even offering his life as Christ did on the Cross.

5. The husband and wife are dependent co-creators with God.

6. The spouses are called to be helpmates to one another in grace and holiness.

7. Marriage is a vocation that takes precedence over other preoccupations. Your attention and energies must first be focused toward one another.

8. Marriage is a sexually intimate relationship between a man and woman.

9. Christian marriage infers a third in the marriage, Christ. Couples enter into the mystery of Christ and his Church. Our Lord identifies himself with the beloved.

10. Couples should come to the marriage bed undefiled. All sexual activity outside of marriage was regarded by the Jews as a violation of the commandment against adultery.

Filed under: Adultery, Bible, Catholic, Commandments, Creation, Discipleship, Divorce, Eschatology, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, Sacraments, Sexuality | 1 Comment »