Morality | Blogger Priest

Impotence & Marriage

Posted on March 18, 2012 by Father Joe

Over the years I have received a number of questions about disabilities and marriage. I am always reminded about one of my first ministerial tasks at the Washington Hospital Center in the District of Columbia. A 22 year old marine had experienced a training accident which left him a paraplegic. His young and very attractive fiancée was ever at his bedside, holding a hand which could no longer feel hers. He wanted to die. Certainly he did not want to tie her down to a man the doctors insisted would always be an invalid. Her response was to remain by his side and to offer tears of intercession for his pain and their lost dreams. Many years have passed since our encounter, and I am still unsure what might best be said in such a situation. It was not a time to come down on their hopes with a debate about the laws of nature and of the Church. I shared their space, offered them prayers and what consolation I could muster, but I could not take away the depths of their loss.

The marital act open to new life and seeking the good of the beloved is a sign and seal of the sacrament. The marriage covenant is consummated and renewed by it. Cognizant of our nature as bodily persons, the Church is also realistic and pragmatic enough to realize that marriages which shortchange sexual intimacy often fuel the fires of infidelity and alienation. The question here is not simply one of disability, but of the type of disability. Blindness, deafness, loss of certain limbs, etc. pose no such impediment to marriage. Even infertility does not negate the right of marriage if no deceit is present when the vows are made. However, can a person mentally deranged or seriously incompetent get married? No, not if they lack a conscious awareness of the nature and obligations of marriage. A paralyzed person, might be fully aware of the responsibilities of marriage, but be incapable of fulfilling them. The law of the Church in such cases is simply a reflection of the natural law. Having said this, once consummated, a tragic accident of such a nature would not abrogate the bond. The initial consummation, uncoerced and unimpeded by contraception, makes a sacramental marriage indissoluble.

What recourse would a couple have in getting married if one of the members is paralyzed from the neck or even from the waist down? Depending on the situation, the bishop himself may not be at liberty to grant a dispensation for marriage. This would especially be the case if there is no real possibility of recovery and consummation of the bond. Having said this, a very grave concern of the Church would be the use of oral sex as an attempted substitute for the marital act. While permissible in the old morals manuals as a precursor to intercourse, it cannot be sought as an ends unto itself. It falls on many of the same arguments as masturbation and homosexual interactions. Moving on, it is possible that some degree of medication and therapy might restore enough function to fulfill the marital act. In such a case, marriage could be permitted. Further, modern technologies have made available various pump mechanisms (requiring surgery) which would make possible an erection. If there is some transmission of seminal fluid, then again, marriage might very well be permitted. This position is not a reduction of the human person to a gross physicalism but the recognition that our living bodies, inextricable animated by souls, are the real expressions of our identity. Unless forsaken for the kingdom, the needs of these personal bodies– our very selves– cannot be underestimated. Having said all this, there is still another avenue a couple might pursue, although a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage. They could live their lives promising perpetual virginity along the lines of the Virgin Mary and the good St. Joseph.

Whatever a couple in such a fix decides to do, they will definitely know the Cross. It is my hope that the Church will always show them the redemptive value of joining our sufferings to the passion of Christ. What this world takes away, the next will restore. What this world leaves us, we can utilize for the coming of the next.

Discussion

SIMON:

Father, this is an interesting summary, and thank you for writing and posting. Here is my question. I have been married for almost 20 years. For the past 7, I have suffered from impotence due to diabetes. My wife and I were blessed with 4 children before the impotence occurred, and were always open to children in our marriage. Since becoming impotent, I have respected my wife’s opinion that we are to remain chaste from now on. Although I have tried all available impotence remedies, none work for us. I would never ask her to do anything she is uncomfortable with, but I cannot grasp how we are forbidden from being intimate even though we can no longer have intercourse. I understand that intercourse is meant to be both procreative and unitive. Impotency has removed our ability to be procreative, but why are we no longer allowed to be unitive, not through intercourse (which we would gladly do if it were at all possible), but through oral or digital stimulation? In the case of sterility, couples are encouraged to be unitive without being able to be procreative. This identification of intercourse as the only unitive act for couples suffering from the heartbreak of impotency pains me. My wife cries about the loss of intimacy. How can this be right? Must we lie together every night and never experience any physical love again? At least a priest’s or homosexual’s decision to remain celibate isn’t constantly tested every night by having the object of their desire lying right next to them. They can remove all “near occasions of sin.” Short of moving out of the marital bed, further removing some of the marital intimacy, I have no recourse to lessen the constant reminder and struggle to understand why the Church deems this to be better for us. It does help to get this off my chest. I do not feel comfortable discussing this with anyone.

FATHER JOE:

Dear Simon, I am sorry for the frustration both you and your wife feel. If you have not already, the problem of impotency might be something better discussed with a professional counselor sympathetic to Catholic teaching. When I discuss generalities, it can come across as cold. Certainly, as a celibate priest, I can in no way appreciate the full personal dynamics of such a situation. You are right; there is a vast difference between a man who sleeps alone and one who rests in bed with the female object of his desire and affection.

I am unable to give you the answer or clarification I know you wish to hear. Although I suppose given the nature of your bond, the moral gravity of an illicit act of affection might be lessened.

While impotency prior to a marriage is an impediment, it has no appreciable effect upon the sacrament afterwards, given that there has been consummation, not to mention, children.

While you suggest a parallel with the question of potency without fertility, the pivotal difference is that the mechanics of the marital act remain the same. It is still the type of act that naturally can result in children and to which the male and female bodies complement each other. Such cannot be said where male potency has been compromised and oral or digital manipulation is pursued.

The Church’s understanding of marital intimacy is more than sexual excitement and physical intimacy. It is the bonding of flesh and souls, with one another and with Jesus. Oral sex and digital manipulation might arguably be closer to masturbation than to the marital act. And while there might be some legitimacy when practiced in tandem with the marital act, the Church resists any complete substitution.

However, if you disagree, I would simply suggest that you regularly bring the matter up in confession, out of respect for Church teaching, and do the best you can to live the Christian life. God knows you love each other and any transgressions from weakness and longing between a husband and wife in such a situation would seem to be small matters to be kept between yourselves and your confessor. It may happen one day that some new therapy or medication may cure the problem. We cannot know the future and should struggle to do the best we can in the present.

There are priests out there who might say, go ahead do what you want, it does not matter. But I cannot in good conscience do that. What I can say is do not despair and know that God is infinitely forgiving and understands how unfair and difficult life can become. If we trip from time to time, he will help pick us up.

Finally, there are some wonderful ways to express intimacy that might restore the romantic elements you both knew when dating and in courtship. Candy and flowers always go a long way. Ballroom dancing is making a come-back. Picnics and boat rides are good. Holding each other tight on a porch swing and sharing lots of hugs and kisses is not so bad either… or so I am told. As spouses you can cuddle and flirt and if things get a little out of hand, well God called you together as lovers and in the heat of passion the boundaries might become blurred on occasion.

Trust each other.
Keep faith in God and in his mercy.
Respect the teachings of the Church.
I will be praying for you both.

ROBERT:

Dear Father Joe, I am a young Catholic man (age 24) engaged to be married and have been researching for personal interest “Josephite Marriage” or “White Marriage.”

As I understand it, under Canon Law, a couple where one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.

As I understand it, what a couple exchange in the marriage vows is the right to demand the marital debt from one another (if the request is reasonable and opportune).

In a “virginal marriage” this right is not used by the mutual consent of the couple. This right is mutually given up for the “sake of the kingdom.”

In a “virginal marriage” there is a mutual agreement not to use a right exchanged (the right to the marital debt).

In an antecedently and perpetually impotent couple, the right to the marital debt cannot be exchanged. Hence, there can be no marriage. One cannot exchange what one does not have.

Hence (from what I’ve gathered on the internet), no marriage can take place between a couple in which one or both partners are antecedently and perpetually impotent not even if the non-impotent party agrees to live a virginal marriage. God bless.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, Robert, you are quite right that canon law stipulates that “a couple in which one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.” Actually, Canon 1084 §1 says that it “invalidates the marriage.”

Note, however, that my post was also very tentative, saying that virginal marriage was a course that such a couple “MIGHT pursue” and that “a sexual dysfunction MIGHT be coercive.” I know the prohibition seems absolute on paper, but I have known cases where exceptions were made, particularly if the dysfunction were not absolute.

While confidentiality does not allow me to reveal many details, I can say this much:

1. Such cases were referred to the local bishop.

2. Only after a canonical, medical and pastoral investigation were decisions made.

3. Bishops themselves (in contact with Rome) gave dispensations from the canonical impediment (somewhat controversial because a few of us thought it might be elevating a juridical process over natural law) or argued that Canon 1084 §2 took precedence.

4. Both partners had to make a faith profession and renounce any and all sexual activity for the sake of the kingdom. It was understood, however, that if the problem of impotence should later find medical resolution, that the bishop had the authority to release them from their vowed celibacy.

5. A theoretical conjecture was noted whereby future medical discoveries might restore the partner’s lost sexual capacity.

6. A rather progressive interpretation was given to this law: “If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null” (Canon 1084 §2 ).

When bishops give such a dispensation and/or ruling, and the news goes public, as you might suspect, there is a lot of controversy. This is particularly so because not all bishops would grant such permission anyway. Speaking as a mere parish priest, I have serious reservations about it, myself.

One case that I recall revolved around the fact that the woman was the paralyzed man’s principal caregiver as well as his best friend. It was also taken into consideration that they were engaged before the accident. Being devout Catholics they wanted to be together, but did not want to commit the scandal of cohabitation outside of marriage. I heard of another case, where a couple already had a child out of wedlock (before the incident that caused paralysis), and they wanted to provide a home with both a father and a mother.

The situation and question can became increasingly complicated, as you can see.

Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.

The situation of allowing impotent men to marry, for the male is where the gravity rests in our theology, is a serious risk on many levels. People are sexual beings. A young woman married to a paralyzed man would naturally desire sexual congress with her husband; the real danger exists that improper acts might be committed and even adultery. The impotent and/or paralyzed man is also taking a terrible chance, as he may find himself emotionally frustrated at not being able to fulfill his marital duty toward his spouse. They might also commit the sin of invitro-fertilization after harvesting sperm cells. In the past, paralyzed people were almost always refused the marriage rite; however, medical discoveries have made people increasingly optimistic about recovery of some sensation and mobility. I am not sure yet if this current optimism is well enough founded on hard science to recommend liberality regarding impotence and freedom to marriage. If impotence is not reversed, the healthy spouse could readily leave the marriage and seek an annulment on the grounds that there was no consummation. Such cases go to Rome. In any case, this leaves the handicapped man open to abandonment.

Aquinas admitted that sexual copulation was not essential to marriage, thus why virginal marriages are even possible; however, he was quick to assert that marriage gives both spouses the natural right over the other spouse’s body for the purpose of the marital act. A permanently paralyzed and/or impotent man cannot consummate the bond, either in actuality or potency. Nevertheless, the female spouse has a right to that unitive act that furthers both fidelity and procreation.

It should be added that if a man is injured (becoming paralyzed and/or impotent) after marriage and its consummation with the marital act, the couple remain married and must endure with faithfulness and courage the plight that has come to them.

DON:

Please, someone tell me this particular column is a cruel joke, kind of like a news story from the Onion website.

FATHER JOE:

About a tragic subject, for sure, but this page is entirely serious.

MARC:

Father Joe, good reasoning in your discussion; my prostate removal has left me not only with ED but also with the absence of seminal fluid. Periodically, I use injections for an erection which “sometimes” is shared with my wife depending on timing, etc. When this happens, it is used to a good moral use well within Church guidelines. But on many other occasions, there is neither erection nor fluid. My wife and I feel that we need to keep our intimacy strong or the relationship will fade leaving both of us blind to each other’s love. Is oral not an option at our age of 64 and married 41 years? Thank you and confused.

FATHER JOE:

Sexual expression and/or the marital act are precious gifts to married couples. However, if the marital act should become difficult or impossible, then the couple should explore chaste forms of affection and signs of love, as with the initial courtship. Dinner and a movie, snuggling on the couch, holding hands and taking walks, kisses and cuddling, etc. You also have your memories.

LINDA:

I have been told by a priest that artificial insemination is allowed if one’s spouse is sterile by deformity (but not impotent) and that to alleviate the “frustration” of the woman to bear a child of her womb, the Church would not reject this couple or child. Is there precedent for this?

FATHER JOE:

What the priest told you is not true. Artificial insemination is forbidden without exception by the Church. The reasoning is that every human being should come into existence through the marital act. There can be no third party intervention in the act of bonding and mutual surrender of the spouses to each other and to divine providence. There is a precise act that God has instituted for the creation of human beings. Artificial insemination and IVF can create the mentality that children are commodities. Further, Christianity teaches that children are a gift from God; no one has a RIGHT as such to a child.

If a couple violate moral law and defy the Church, the Church would not reject the couple and/or the child. The child is innocent and cannot be faulted for the misbehavior of parents, no matter whether it be through illicit fertilization procedures or acts of rape or incest. The parents can know absolution if they express some small degree of sorrow and subsequent respect for Church authority.

MORGAN:

Father Joe, I met my wife in Medugorje. We wrote letters to each other over the years and fell in love. One day she said to me over the phone, “When you find out about me, you will have the choice to come or go.” I didn’t know then what it meant. I had many guesses in my mind. But none were reasonable. Then one night while in prayer I heard what I believe was the Lord. He told me what was wrong with her and asked me if I would love her. I said yes. A few moments later the phone rang and it was her. I told her what was wrong and she was surprised. I also told her that I would love her.

My wife had cancer when she was 2 years old. They took her uterus, vagina and eggs. Everything was taken leaving a scar and a clitoris. There is no penetration.

I went to Medugorje with her again and asked a priest if marrying her was the right choice despite her impotency. He said we could be together as long as we lived as the angels do.

She further went and talked to her local bishop who said marriage in the church was not possible, but we could do a legal marriage to be together so long as we live chastely.

The day we got married, it was not our intention. It was the only day my sister could organize with the judge, April 14, 2006— Good Friday of that year.

We have lived together for 3 years now. My wife does have feeling in her clitoris and I am a fully capable male. If we did do anything, would it be wrong for us to do? Can we get married in the Catholic Church? If not, do we seek this Virginal Marriage from our local bishop and would it constitute as a marriage inside the church?

Also, we ran into a priest who said our legal marriage was wrong, we couldn’t adopt kids, and he tried to make my wife promise we would separate after some time. He said he wouldn’t give her absolution in confession unless she promised to do so. She did not promise it. She came to me in tears.

I love my wife. She has stuck with me through a war, taken care of me, and we both share a cross. I couldn’t see myself with anyone else. Do I need to seek a miracle and if so, how do I do that?

FATHER JOE:

I would suggest that you seek out someone in the diocesan chancery and/or authorities in Catholic medical ethics. Infertility would not prevent marriage. The issue is impotency and the marital act. There are many points here which are unique to your case and would need to be explored by experts, both in medicine and in Church law. I can only speculate, but would it be possible to surgically refashion a type of female genitalia for her? I know there have been cases of men, particularly those with paralysis, who have had pumps surgically inserted to make the marital act possible. Oral and anal sex are disapproved as beneath human dignity and do not constitute consummation of the bond. A virginal relationship would pose no particular problem, but a Catholic marriage respecting sexual intimacy poses important hurdles for you both. Vowed virginal marriages in the Church are fairly rare, and usually require that a couple denounces vaginal sex, not that they are incapable of it.

I am sorry for the suffering you both endure and regret that you feel hurt by the hard counsel of a brother priest. I wish I had more answers for you or those you so desperately want to hear. Even if you should be asked to refrain from Holy Communion, go to Mass each Sunday and pray daily with each other. Yours are not sins of malice. Your struggle is with love, affection and the frailty of the human condition. You will both remain in my prayers.

FRANK:

Father Joe, re: Josephite Marriage, and your previous discussion of it, I fail to understand just what kind of union results from the exchange of promises, (of chastity and fidelity), in a marriage in which one of the principals is irreversibly impotent. Is there a real covenant? One which is just as binding civilly and religiously as in a normal marriage? Can’t understand why the healthy party in such cases can’t just, willy nilly, choose to walk away, without considering the medium of divorce or annulment.

FATHER JOE:

I did say that “a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage,” meaning that such an alternative would be problematical. The post was originally written some time back and I am not sure I meant a “Josephite marriage,” probably just an analogous spiritual friendship. A true Josephite marriage would imply that a couple freely opted not to exercise their genital prerogatives. Impotence means there is no choice, no potential for the marital act.

LAURA:

I came across this post today when trying to look into this issue as it has been bothering me. I may be wrong, but I thought that in the case of a “properly functioning” couple, John Paul II drew a distinction between oral sex for men and women. As I understand the teaching, since the female orgasm has nothing to do with conception, oral stimulation of the woman is permitted even if not in conjunction with a completed act of intercourse. At least that’s how I have had the teaching explained to me. If that’s the case, I still can’t wrap my head around why, for a couple for whom conception is impossible (i.e. a couple where one partner is impotent), the teaching would be any different. In other words, I didn’t think the “no oral sex without completed act of intercourse” rule was about conception and being open to life, not about mechanics of the act. If the couple would be open to life but for the impotence, I’m not sure how oral sex for this couple is different than the permissible oral sex on a woman in a normal-functioning couple.

FATHER JOE:

I do not recall the late pope making any such distinction that would permit female masturbation. The marital act is defined as that sexual act which is the type of act that is open to the transmission of human life. Pleasure for both men and women is an enticement for intercourse that is required for the propagation of the species. It is also an ingredient in the fidelity of the spouses. While the old moral manuals permitted a certain level of foreplay to facilitate the marital act, as well as manipulation of the female if the male climaxed too quickly, such stimulation apart from intercourse was frowned upon. As far as I know, nothing has changed. I suspect someone taught you wrong. Where is Pope John Paul II supposed to have said otherwise? The late pope gave an emphasis upon spousal fidelity that was sometimes eclipsed by procreation in Catholic thinking; but nothing in his theology of the body overturned basic morality.

LAURA:

I went back and looked at what I had read, and I suppose you are right that oral sex on a woman is not permitted in and of itself. But here is what I read (by Christopher West) that is still not quite what you are saying:

“The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).”

FATHER JOE:

Yes, he is correct. I have not written anything which contradicts this. Onanism is still a sin, no matter whether alone or with a partner. Strictly speaking, this regards the male “spilling the seed.” Foreplay that includes male climax is not foreplay. Rather, it has wrongly been substituted for the marital act. Similarly, after intercourse, the manipulation of the female by the husband so that she might climax has been judged as lawful by moralists.

LAURA:

I recognize that Christopher West is not an official authority in the Church, but if what he’s saying is true, while I’m wrong that female stimulation is permitted as an isolated act, it would appear that oral sex as foreplay is not “frowned upon” as you say, nor is some female stimulation prohibited even after sex (which does not confine it just to the realm of “foreplay”). This is also consistent with what is written in the book “Holy Sex,” written by a number of modern Catholic theologians.

FATHER JOE:

What West writes is okay, however, your commentary is not clear. Foreplay is only frowned upon if the male climaxes without true intercourse. But, as I said, then it is not foreplay but simply oral sex or masturbation. Give me the quote where I am wrong and I will correct it. Peace!

DAVID:

Are implants to treat impotence banned by Church teaching where there are no other alternative treatments to achieve a valid marriage?

FATHER JOE:

Implants, as such, are not banned.

DAVID:

Are surgically implanted pumps allowed as a means of overcoming impotence?

FATHER JOE:

It is a tricky and somewhat controversial business. Evidently bishops will sometimes give a dispensation for marriage after the implantation of such pumps. The argument is that with this intervention the impotence is no longer absolute. I am not sure if all bishops are happy with such a compromise. Particularly in cases of paralysis, it might make the mechanics possible, but the man would still not feel anything. How would this affect their mutual self-donation and bonding in the marital act? There may be little other recourse after marriage. If paralysis or injury brought about such serious impotence in a man prior to marriage, I would probably advise a reconsideration altogether. People are not machines and the flesh is weak. My perspective might seem cold, heartless and cynical. I do not intend to come across this way. But I have seen too many relationships of this sort, between a woman and impotent man, fall apart with the most devastating consequences. Could not such men settle for simple and chaste friendships?

EILEEN:

My question is not related directly to this topic, but I have been searching for an answer and cannot find it, so figured I’d try here.

Thirteen years ago, upon learning that I was pregnant with our sixth child, my husband, against my wishes, had a vasectomy. This nearly broke our marriage and it took a long time to recover. (He was not raised Catholic and is a convert who struggles with the ban on contraceptives.)

Since that time, there have been a few occasions (very few) where during sexual activity he has engaged in self-stimulation along with the mutual activity. Usually, this all ultimately ends up with penetration taking place and the completion of the sex act as it should; but on a couple of occasions, he has ejaculated outside of [the body].

As the ejacula no longer carries sperm, and as the intent at the beginning of the sexual activity was to complete internally, is this a mortal sin?

FATHER JOE:

First, the vasectomy was wrong and sinful for several reasons. It is regarded as a mutilation of the human person and the generative powers. It reflects a contraceptive mentality wherein the openness to human life which is intrinsic to the marital act is spurned. Upon repentance, and where possible, the Church would also recommend repair of the damaged faculties.

Second, there may have been emotional healing, but an important element of the sacramental reality of your marital covenant remained wounded.

Third, given the vasectomy, it would seem that the matter of a ban upon artificial contraceptives would be a “personally” mute point. He has embraced perpetual infertility over periodic sterility. Many lifelong Catholics also dissent upon this matter. He may have been a convert, but did he “convert” enough?

Fourth, while an element of manipulation may be understood as foreplay and preparation for the marital act; such activities must not be pursued in themselves or seen as independent. Human beings are not animals and the marital act should not be reduced to cold mechanics. It is ideally a self-donation and surrender to the beloved. While accidents do happen, we should still be watchful against the sin of Onanism.

Fifth, the intention behind the actions that surround the marital act do have moral weight. However, the fact that the ejacula is deficient or void of sperm does not matter in this situation of self-manipulation or arousal outside the marital act.

JAN:

Erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment has evolved a lot from traditional times. Earlier this problem was believed to be caused by psychological factors only, but now we know better, so have the treatments.

ROSIE:

What do you do when you have been married for nearly 9 years and your husband has never been able to properly [fulfill the marital act]? The cause being diabetes but you didn’t know this until recently. He is able to bring you to climax [through manipulation] but you find this, although better than nothing, very much unsatisfactory. Also you can’t talk about how you feel with him. Also facing the temptation of other males on the scene for which intercourse would be very easy. Is this a real marriage or should it be annulled?

FATHER JOE:

Dear Rosie, I am far from an authority upon such issues and this is a somewhat delicate question. However, there are a few points I would like to note:

First, as a married couple you should be able to dialogue with your spouse about your personal needs in this relationship. It might be hard, but nothing can be done to help the situation unless you work together.

Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.

Third, I would urge you to avoid both actual temptation and fantasies toward adultery. Take the matter of divorce and annulment off the table. You have been married for almost a decade. Fight for your marriage and love one another, “for better or for worse” until death do you part.

Fourth, do not be afraid to work with a doctor who might be able to help you both. Not all physical problems can be overcome, but sometimes situations can be much improved. Peace!

ALLIE:

I have a question. You said, “Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.”

And later, you suggested that the woman who had surgery for cancer at age 2 that removed her vagina (and uterus, and ovaries), have surgery to create an artificial vagina. Can you help me understand Church law regarding these types of surgeries? And why have you tied male sexual pleasure as a necessity of the marital act? Especially since, as you pointed out, “Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.”

It seems to me that whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple should be permissible, whether that is allowing impotent couples to come together in intimacy of their own choosing or allowing couples to marry who know that what they currently have in a physical relationship (i.e., paraplegics, etc.) is all they can lawfully have. I should think that the binding thread here is LOVE. Having read the entire page today, it seems to me that the unlawful marriage of the couple from Medjugorie is far more of a loving union than Rosie’s marriage of almost a decade. My heart goes out to all the couples here. You are struggling with much. And I am struggling to understand myself.

FATHER JOE:

The marital act is defined by the Church in light of natural law. Other forms of intimacy and/or sexual congress have neither the capacity to consummate the marital covenant nor any significant degree of fecundity. The general subjective experience (which often includes some degree of pleasure) furthers the good of fidelity between spouses. My emphasis is not directly upon pleasure but upon the capacity of a couple to engage in non-contraceptive sexual intercourse as a requirement for marriage.

As for the reconstruction of genitalia, the morality hinges upon the repair of something impaired, as through accident or cancer. Such repair is not always possible. Further, no such reconstruction should seek to alter the external gender in contradiction to that given at birth and in the DNA. The Church opposes so-called sex-change operations and views such measures in terms of self-mutilation and the unlawful or immoral damaging of physical faculties.

You would accept as legitimate “whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple.” However, by extension, this is also the erroneous argument posed by homosexuals seeking the recognition of their unions as a form of marriage. The problem is that the marital act between a man and woman, defined as non-contraceptive vaginal intercourse, allows for no substitutions. One can feign the act, either through choice or because the actual act is impossible, but such neither consummates nor renews the marital covenant. Instead of a virtuous act which brings grace, there would be the commission of sin instead. That is the Catholic view, again based upon divine positive law and especially natural law. Love and friendship are indeed important. But one can have both outside of sexual relationships. Indeed, as a celibate priest, I have dedicated my life to the love of God and to the service of his people. Marriage is not the only sacrament of love. The ordination of a priest is a sacrament of love. Indeed, our common baptism into the family of God is the first and most basic sacrament of love. The right to marriage is not absolute. If it were, we would have to pass out spouses just as we distribute bread to the hungry. It does not work that way.

Filed under: Adultery, Catholic, Celibacy, Contraception, Discipleship, Marriage, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 33 Comments »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #5 (Discussion)

Posted on March 14, 2012 by Father Joe

Continuation of the Discussion on Homosexuality

This is the fifth installment in this extended dialogue about homosexuality. I must warn the reader that not everyone is polite and few are timid about remarks. The majority express a strong negativity to the disorientation. Unfortunately, one of its strongest proponents was an avowed atheist. I was hoping that we might more deeply explore how some try to reconcile such a lifestyle with a professed Christian faith. The atheist rejects Christian morals because the Bible is just another book to him. Natural law often fails because he rejects intelligent design and order. The active homosexual person who tries to be a Christian would face serious quandaries regarding the Scriptural prohibitions. Does he argue that the Bible is not inerrant and fully inspired? Does he contend that certain teachings are prejudiced and so historically and culturally situated that they no longer speak to us? Would he contend that just as slavery was tolerated, core Scriptural values would override and come to the fore with later reflection about homosexuality? Might such dissenters merely ignore parts of the Bible and our sacred tradition, giving greater gravity to secular humanism and present-day social engineering? These questions really did not arise in this conversation.

DURCK:

Homosexuals are imposing their standards upon me and my children by claiming that such a lifestyle is acceptable and by telling my children that they, too, can live the gay lifestyle. Yes, the gay agenda is to force (yes, force) society to proclaim homosexual and lesbian unions as legitimate and valid. Absolutely not! All of you can talk until you’re blue in the face— I’m not buying any of it.

And when gay couples adopt children, they’re bringing yet a third party into their madness.

Who do any of you think you’re kidding?

MICHAEL:

Durck— you’re right. This is an abuse of the English language. We call them homosexual lifestyles right? Let’s call them what they really are. They’re death styles.

When I was young, my parents took our family for a Sunday ride through historic Bucks County, Pennsylvania. We drove through a town called New Hope. That was the first time in my life that I had witnessed two men kissing each other in public. One of the men was wearing a full length mink coat and then exposed himself to the other man. What stands out the most in my mind was the negative reactions of my parents. This left an indelible impression upon me for the rest of my life. My conscience told me how sick and how wrong that was. I’m sure that my late father, given the chance, would have kicked the crap out of them, only because his children were there.

A gay couple should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child either. Children need both a mother (female) and a father (male).

We have to fight today to keep normal things normal. It isn’t natural or normal for two people of the same sex to be physically attracted to each other. GET SOME HELP.

MORSE:

So Michael, when I see stories of Christians and Catholics abusing children, should I assume that every Christian and Catholic is a child abuser?

Perhaps Christians and Catholics should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child. Because of COURSE they’re ALL just horrible child molesters. [sarcasm]

FATHER JOE:

Okay, everybody let us try to place nice.

MORSE:

Why? I’m using his logic. Because two men were once lurid in public, he is casting down judgment on all homosexuals. Why should I not do the same to Christians?

FATHER JOE:

It may be that he could have better made his case. Remember, Christians presume that the believer who lives out his faith is properly disposed to virtue. By contrast, active homosexuality would undermine one’s moral standing, even if discrete. It is still sinful. While there are hypocritical Christians, there are also many homosexuals who reinforce the stereotype of low morals by public acts of lewdness and dissent.

DURCK:

Glad you agree, Michael. I’m sure your late father was incensed that his young son had to witness such a spectacle, but, seeing you today, he would have no cause to worry of any negative effect that sight may have had on you.

My heart breaks for children, especially today— the smut and the insanity they’re subjected to is absolutely criminal. What infuriates me the most is the brainwashing that’s imposed upon them while they’re still so vulnerable.

I know that homosexuals and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and that we should treat them respectfully, but I’m finding the task of loving them increasingly more difficult.

LARA:

See what I mean, Michael, that “anger within?” Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life, so since they’ve chosen not to, they presume the right to clobber us for our every foible. Speaking of straining on gnats and swallowing camels…

MICHAEL:

Morse— for your info, neither Christians and Catholics, nor priests hold a monopoly on child abuse and pedophilia. That’s what deceived and deluded people try very hard to believe.

You can also thank Almighty God that you weren’t raised by either two males or two females, or were you? If I struck a nerve with you GOOD!

Gay is not OK. If you’re a “CHRISTIAN” then you’ll agree because homosexuality in the site of God is an ABOMINATION.

Be it known that I DON’T HATE HOMOSEXUALS! I LOVE THEM BECAUSE GOD DOES. What I hate is sinful behavior, especially in public and in clear view of innocent children.

Dear Lara, they don’t have any defense. That’s why they’re angry.

If their biological parents never came together in that most sacred act, they wouldn’t be here defending their abnormal and sinful behavior.

MORSE:

Christians who live out their faith are virtuous? Well, the majority of homosexuals are also virtuous. You happen to think you have a monopoly on virtue. The rest of the world disagrees with you.

“Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life.”

No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so. A book saying something does not make it so.

FATHER JOE:

Morse, I am using the word “virtue” or “virtuous” not simply in reference to natural virtues but that which is brought about by grace and is supernatural. I would hardly think an atheist could tell me who has and has not been so favored by God, particularly since you deny his existence. How often have I spoken about Catholics as not only a people of “the Book” (the Scriptures) but of a rational faith, too?

Homosexual acts also violate the natural law.

LARA:

The “rest of the world” disagrees with Father Joe?

Oh, please. That’s quite a hopeful stretch of the imagination, I must say, and not only painfully (for you) inaccurate, but a bold-written lie.

The Roman Catholic Church and her priests show more genuine, loving compassion toward you as homosexuals and lesbians than any other group on earth, and even their love you reject and ridicule. Why? Because they refuse, again, out of love for you— to pat you on your head and tell you, “There, there, my child, live as you please with a clear conscience…”

And you think the left cares for you? No, they’re using you, that’s why they couldn’t care less how you live.

“No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so.” No, there isn’t a good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral, but there are plenty of horrible reasons, aren’t there? No big surprise, either, that the Holy Bible is considered “just a book” to you. If the Bible condoned homosexuality, you wouldn’t view it as just a book, then. I, or anyone else, don’t have to quote you a good reason why homosexuality is immoral— you already know that it’s immoral. Oh, yes you do.

Morse, you’re at the wrong site to seek the validation you’re after, but there are plenty of sites that will tell you what you want to hear. Why waste your time here?

ISHMAEL:

Father Joe, yes God can only judge homosexuals and it’s true that their acts are against God’s laws. But we should respect homosexuals and treat them very kindness and respect.

I don’t have a problem with homosexuals but I don’t agree with the sexual stuff they do. But I believe God will judge us at the same time that he judges homosexuals. I believe the things that homosexuals do is sinful, but that being gay is not a sin.

LEIGH:

OK, everyone is quick to judge the homosexuals whether men or women; but, at the same time, we have Catholic priests molesting BOYS. Maybe you should put all your time and energy on something that matters?

FATHER JOE:

I have spoken about the tragedy of such men in the Church, too. But someone has observed that while not all homosexuals are pedophiles (or pederasts), most of the cases of such sins against children by churchmen have been homosexual in orientation and act.

LEIGH:

I have read the Bible and know what it says about homosexuality. I also know that I will only be judged by God. None of you have the right to throw judgment on anyone else. You are no one to say what is right and wrong.

FATHER JOE:

You have read the Bible, really? What you say is not what the Bible says.

LEIGH:

I know straight people and gay and most of the straight marriages I know (not all) end in adultery and lies. Meanwhile, spouses in all the gay marriages I know have the upmost respect for each other.

FATHER JOE:

You would recommend perverse relationships by castigating marriage? No, you are very much in error.

LEIGH:

I believe a person cannot help who they fall in love with and are attracted to. I am not saying gay is better than straight; I just think everyone should worry about their own relationships and give the gay community a break.

FATHER JOE:

I think we already give them a break. We love them, despite their sinful behavior. However, it would be a false love to say nothing regarding actions which offend God and our nature. We speak not as a perfect people or as kin to the self-righteous Pharisee, but as sinners who know Christ’s mercy.

ISHMAEL:

Father Joe, God does not judge homosexuality because that’s not good.

Homosexuality is not a sin. It is just the ministers out there trying to get people to believe otherwise. God will never judge because he respects and accepts them for who they are. If they are God’s kids, then why does he judge?

FATHER JOE:

Sorry Ishmael, but something objectively wrong is not right just because we want it to be otherwise. The ancient Jews condemned homosexuality as repugnant to God and enacted severe punitive measures against it. Likewise, both Christian Tradition and Scripture are clear in its prohibition and in how such activity deprives one of membership in the kingdom of heaven. Your view of parenthood is flawed; it is a role not of blind toleration, but one where guidance about right and wrong is offered. Divine justice speaks to the demands of natural law and divine positive law. Yes, there is infinite love and wondrous mercy, but never at the cost of truth or by compelling collaboration with moral evil. We are creatures and it is not the place of the creature to tell the Creator that he cannot judge us. We belong to him. Our posture should always be that of humble obedience. God does not merely accept us for who we are but calls us to repentance and conversion. If you do not know that then you are a stranger to the Gospel.

WAYNE:

Father Joe, I am who I am and not defined by my sexuality alone. I feel that I am no less one of God’s children than a heterosexual. I can only hope that God is more compassionate than you are.

I have spent my life trying to be a good person by loving and being considerate of my neighbor and sharing my time, talent and treasure.. I pray and participate at Mass, not just attend, on a regular basis and have faith that God will judge me for all I was in life, not just my sexuality.

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

FATHER JOE:

Given the weather, I have a few snow balls, but no stones to throw. It is NOT my intention to be inconsiderate or mean. I am, however, a Catholic priest, and as such am obliged to teach and believe what the Church holds to be true. Yes, you are not utterly defined by your orientation; however, although you admit this, you then demand a full acceptance of your homosexuality or else. Sorry, that just does not wash. Like any unmarried heterosexual, you are called to a chaste life without genital or sexual activity. Since homosexuals cannot marry one another, you must then practice perpetual celibacy. As long as you are free from mortal sin, there is nothing that prevents you from the full and active participation in the Mass and Holy Communion. This is a statement of fact. Nothing is said to hurt you. God loves you and so does the Church. But all of us must obey God. The moral code on such questions is quite clear. I will pray for you.

ISHMAEL:

So Father Joe, are you are saying that if you were not a Catholic priest you would agree with homosexuality? You said, “God loves you and so does the church,” but then you said, “All of us must obey God.” It sounds like you are saying God does not love Wayne. It sounds like you are against homosexuality, Father Joe!

FATHER JOE:

No, priest or not, I would accept and believe what the Church teaches. However, as a priest I have a special commission to preach and to teach. It is not my place to substitute the whims of men for the truths of God and his holy Church. The Church rightfully opposes homosexual activity as wrong and as sinful. Homosexuality is a disorientation, a disease of the mind. God loves us all, including homosexuals. However, he wants us to LOVE HIM enough to obey him and to make the needed sacrifices to do so. We all struggle but not all our struggles are the same. Deviant sexual attraction and practices do not constitute a legitimate human right, nor should they be encouraged or normalized. Civil society is very wrong about this. There should even be civil sanctions against such crimes. Until recently sodomy was listed among the vices that were punishable under law.

MARCIA:

Anatomically speaking, the anus was not designed as a sexual orifice nor was man’s seed intended to be planted in feces. Male and female were created by God sexually different so as to procreate the species. Going beyond that design by anyone is perverse.

Homosexual acts are perverted or nicely put, “disordered.” There really is no argument here since the created design of male and female was quite simple and meant for the most basic intellect to understand.

To argue that God allows or accepts anything else negates everything the Scriptures tell us. Sex in and of itself is not necessary for love to exist.

ISHMAEL:

Dear Father Joe, why is the Church so against gay people? It is not a disease of the mind you dumb priest! The problem is ministers out there trying to get people to hate homosexuals. Do you dislike gay people?

FATHER JOE:

I do not hate anybody. But I am a priest and a Christian. I trust God’s Word on this subject. My appreciation of natural law substantiates my religious beliefs. I believe that homosexuals are called to lives of celibate and chaste love. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Sexual expression outside of marriage is a sin.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 10 Comments »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #4 (Debate)

Posted on March 13, 2012 by Father Joe

A Debate with Max on Homosexuality

MAX:

Some argue that in regard to the condemnation of homosexuality it would be difficult to find anything comparable in the Scriptures to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is true— if you don’t know what the story references.

FATHER JOE:

Scripture has many levels and can be multivalent; nevertheless, how it is understood by the people who claim it does matter and more so than any proposed rediscovery or rethinking of the texts. You are simply bending over backwards to discount one of the two tiers against homosexuality, the witness of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church also employs a Christian anthropology that relies heavily upon the perennial philosophy of the Church and natural law.

MAX:

Historically, the story is presented as an indictment of homosexuality. Presumably, those knocking at the host’s door are male homosexuals bent on abusing the host’s male guests. The telling moment in this story, however, is when the host offers his daughters in place of his guests. These were “townspeople.” So, since the host knew them, he would have known that in this situation his daughters would not satisfy homosexual men— from the youngest to the oldest townsman— presumably from five years old to eighty.

FATHER JOE:

Lot offered his daughters because he was desperate and really did not know what to do. The men at the door are true “sodomites,” wanting to have their way with his mysterious visitors. Even the revised New American text has not garbled it: We read: “Before they went to bed, ALL the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—ALL the people to the last man—closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may HAVE INTIMACIES with them’” (Genesis 19:4-5).

MAX:

Most Catholic Scripture scholars today would see the story differently. Probably it is a story of ancient hospitality codes; the conduct rules between hosts and guests. When one travelled to a distant place he usually stayed with strangers. There were no Holiday Inns. This made for a risky situation for both host and guests. So host-guest rules (Xenia) were critical. In fact, Lot alludes to this in telling the townspeople: “these guests have taken shelter under my roof.” So he must protect them at all costs— including the lives of his daughters and his own. The nature of their assault on the guests symbolizes the degree of depravity in their lives. What was the nature of their depravity? Take your pick. Israelite tradition attributed it to wickedness of the city. The Yahwist (J Source) thought it was homosexuality; Isaiah thought it was a lack of social justice. Ezekiel saw it as a disregard for the poor and Jeremiah thought it was a general state of immorality.

FATHER JOE:

I do not know any orthodox Catholic Scriptural exegetes who would take the sin of homosexuality out of the mix. Your supposition about hospitality codes is just that and probably derived from the few footnotes on the bottom of your Bible. Every school boy who went to a Catholic college learned about the sources imbedded in Genesis. We also know that stories and references are sometimes told with a different emphasis. However, the whole Bible and not dissected parts is what we embrace as God’s inspired Word. The text is clear that these townsmen and boys wanted the visitors for homosexual rape. I would call that being pretty inhospitable! Sodom is destroyed because their perversion capped a vast malaise of immorality. “But among Jerusalem’s prophets I saw deeds still more shocking: Adultery, living in lies, siding with the wicked, so that no one turns from evil: To men they are all like Sodom, its citizens like Gomorrah” (Jeremiah 23:14). The comparison here is less with sodomy and more with the fact that like Sodom, no one is innocent or seemingly willing to repent before it is too late. People selfishly involved with their sinful lives care little for justice or for the poor. Likewise, Ezekiel compares God’s people to Sodom to awaken them from their moral stupor: judging his people as neglectful of the needy, he said, “Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them” (Ezekiel 16:50). In any case, this was a bit of an aside. I made reference to Sodom and Gomorrah to show that, even in the earliest days, the Bible condemned such sexual behavior as sin. I doubt that any day soon God will shoot lightning bolts down upon gay people. God would still be displeased, though.

MAX:

In contemporary times it has been fashionable to demonize homosexuality every chance we get in spite of the Church asking that we show kindness and sympathy. Maybe that’s why we like the homosexual interpretation so much.

FATHER JOE:

I neither like nor dislike it. It is simply the way things are and I have no authority to change it. Homosexuals should not be teased or bullied. We should not call them names. They are also God’s children. God calls them to celibate love and holiness. I embraced celibacy as a sacrifice of my priesthood. For the sake of my vocation to serve God’s Church, I freely gave up the right to have a wife and family. Unless some reversal in inclination is in the offering, the homosexual accepts celibacy from necessity. Homosexual actions are sinful. As for the homosexual orientation, it is unfortunate but invokes no fault. The life of purity brings no condemnation, but grace and holiness.

MAX:

For me it’s a question of catecheses. In the Old Testament we need to stop teaching old Babylonian myths and Assyrian folkloric stories and start teaching Hebrew history and how the Hebrew Bible was put together.

FATHER JOE:

Faith is not found in dissected parts of the Bible or in historical-critical analysis of Scriptures. You seem to admit some deficiency in various parts of the Bible, and yet, it is all God’s inspired revelation. The final interpretation of the texts remains with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, not with you and not with the so-called experts. Look to the kerygma of faith, and not to the semi-atheistic techniques that rob the Bible of mystery and ultimately of binding truth.

MAX:

The New Testament, particularly the Synoptics, are written in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies. If one is not familiar with the genre form, he’s not going to really appreciate the New Testament. The average pew Catholic, which is the majority, gets none of this from the pulpit. So as time goes on movements like the New Atheism is going to continue to eat our lunch as we will continue to look sillier and sillier. Catholicism is a defensible religion. So we need to start doing it.

FATHER JOE:

The New Testament gives us four Gospels each with its own particular theology but all about the life of Jesus Christ. If you deny that it gives us the real life of Christ then you fall under the censure of the Syllabus of Errors against the heresy of Modernism. We have Acts that gives us a window into the early Church. We have the Book of Revelation which reminds us about God’s providence and how all things will be consummated in Christ. We have various letters, which instruct and admonish the churches.

We will not survive the New Atheism by adopting its methods or by making Christian truths, dogmatic and moral, somehow relative. Sorry, I will stick to the faith that is survived the ages and is true, not with your new dissenter’s version.

Returning to the topic of this post, homosexual acts are immoral— PERIOD!

Discussion

TS:

“Only God Can Judge Homosexuality”— Assumption: The perfect Deity has a need to cast judgment.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, we have a need for judgment. We bring it upon ourselves. We were made for God. If our faith in words and witness testifies to him, he will give us himself. If we reject him, he will respect our freedom and draw us away from his presence. The joy of heaven and the pains of hell are first fashioned in this world and made final in the next.

MICHAEL:

I don’t understand why we complicate the simple things of life. God desires so much to bless us in abundance. Why are we so ignorant of this?

Instead of being receptive, we’ve chosen to be wayward in disobedience and unworthy of any blessings. God can’t bless us if we are self willed and live according to our flesh. This is an insult to God. I would choose to go without sex my entire life for that fact alone, IF I were a person with homosexual tendencies.
Our Lady told the Fatima children that souls fall into hell like snowflakes because of sins of the flesh. They’ll never know what they’ve missed out on. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IS RESERVED FOR MARRIED PEOPLE OF OPPOSITE SEX ALONE. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

TASTI:

Father Joe, I am glad that you have gay friends and continue to have dialogue with them. That says a lot about you and your ministry. I will read your other posts. You have every right to your opinion as I do. On this issue we differ. I do not have argument with God. It is you I disagree with on this issue. I am sure we can go back and forth on just this point.

Even the clergy is at odds about their own interpretation of Scripture, each calling each other valid or invalid. Look how many churches exist today who broke away from the original Catholic Church because of one point of doctrine or another. Yes, we can go back and forth on this point also.

As passionate as we are about our different points of view on this topic, you have responded to the opposing questions thoughtfully with your points. If I ever have the opportunity to be in Maryland one day, I would love to drop by your parish and visit. You would be a very interesting person to talk to about faith matters.

MORSE:

“Returning to the topic of this post, homosexual acts are immoral— PERIOD!” Why? If it’s just because you think your god says so, then it’s as completely arbitrary as “wearing hats indoors is immoral.” If you have an actual reason as to any harm that homosexuality causes, by all means present it. I am, however, well read in many of the debunked “homosexuality leads to crime/depression/unsafe sex’ studies.” But, as I said, they are debunked. Anything new, however, would be lovely.

FATHER JOE:

My posts are religious ones. Two Scripture citations were made in the first, next I quoted the universal catechism, and here I record an extended debate. It is a debate within Christianity. Except for the matter of natural law, I had not originally intended to extend it to atheism. As a Catholic, I believe that God exists and that he and his laws are part of an objective order. Christians have as much right as anyone else to have their say and to have their votes counted in a free society. As for the various problems associated with homosexuality, I hardly want to discuss such a sordid business. Let it suffice to say that I know a doctor who has had to perform a great deal of rectal surgery because of the damage caused by anal intercourse. In any case, I think your comment here is mere mischief.

NIGEL:

Nigel cited my initial blog post with the two Scriptures passages that condemn homosexuality…

Pastor, I don’t know where you went to seminary, nor do I know how long you’ve been preaching, but it is clear to me that you’ve forgotten a very important, yet basic, passage from the Bible, and this is what it says:

He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Luke, 10:27)

It seems that you are quite capable of doing the first part of this passage quite well, however you clearly don’t have the slightest clue as to do the second. Gays and lesbians, Father, are just as much your brothers and sisters as anyone else. And yet, here you are belittling them and name-dropping God as a cover for it.

My suggestion to you, then, would be for you to re-evaluate the people you work with on a daily basis. Chances are, you work and pray with gays (whether or not you’re aware of it), so I’d suggest that you change your ways.

I hope that you learn to accept people for who they are, regardless of whether or not you agree with the way they live their lives.

FATHER JOE:

Nigel, I think you were rather rash in judging me before inviting some discussion.
I posted the verses on my Blog to illustrate the negative view that is taken from Scripture about homosexual activity. (The inspiration was a new HALLMARK card that supports gay civil unions or marriages.) In my follow up comments I also quoted the universal catechism of the Catholic Church. It was never denied that gays and lesbians may also be brothers and sisters in faith. I firmly believe that we treat everyone with respect and compassion. Considering homosexual acts as sinful does not mean that we must necessarily hate or discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Regarding Luke 10:27, the love of God and neighbor is not an emotional affair but must have real Christian substance. It refers to a movement of the will and a practical application. The model of love that our Lord gives us is that of sacrifice. Loving God means placing faith in his Son and allowing that love to spill over upon our neighbors. If we firmly believe that certain things are right and wrong, then love must take hard stands. Like Jesus in the garden, the movement of our soul has to imitate Jesus’ submission, “Not my will, but thy will be done.” We want to please God, no matter what the cost. We want our neighbor (composed of both friends and enemies) to be happy and to know the joys of the kingdom and eternal life. Although sometimes ridiculed, there is truth in the proposition that we must “love the sinner but hate the sin.”

I count a number of gay men and even lesbian women among my friends. A few of them agree with me that they are called to a life of chaste celibacy, service and prayerfulness. Others would disagree with me but I remain close to them and their families. They know what I think and I will not deceive them about it. They also know that I am there for them, always ready to bring absolution to those with contrite hearts and to anoint those who will soon see God. Peace!

ROBERTA:

No human has the right to judge what is immoral for another.

FATHER JOE:

Ridiculous! Would you not judge the immorality of a pedophile or a slaver? Sure you would; indeed, while subjective, you have already judged me for judging!

ROBERTA:

If gays want to act on the way they were born let them be.

In the end only the higher being can judge if they have made a mistake or not.

FATHER JOE:

Again this is silly. You are saying that the Church must be silent about Christian morality! The Church and her ministers have every right to transmit the values of faith. The Church also has a right to be a player in the public forum.

ROBERTA:

I know many gay people and most of them are wonderful kind loving people with families, friends, homes, jobs and yes even children. Just let them be and show some love and compassion.

FATHER JOE:

A failure to admonish the sinner is a pathetic love. No one is talking about deliberately hurting people just to make their lives miserable. As a Catholic priest and as a Christian, I have a mission mandate to spread the faith. If St. Paul took your advice, whole epistles would disappear from the Bible. As a priest, one of my duties is the forgiveness of sins and to help people in receiving sanctifying grace. We should all want our homosexual brothers and lesbian sisters to go to heaven, and ourselves along with them. Silence and moral apathy is a false compassion and not from God. You mean well, but such an attitude is defeatist. My suspicion though, is that it reflects a moral decision, that homosexual activity is no big deal. In contradiction, Catholicism regards all sexuality and personhood as tremendously important.

SMILEY:

Father, what about homosexual tendencies? Let me explain. What if a person has a leaning towards this terrible sin which cries out to God for vengeance? The person may never act on it physically, but what about mentally. Does not the Bible say not only committing adultery is wrong but so much as looking at a woman the wrong way?

What about sinful acts committed in the mind leading to self abuse. This is also a mortal sin is it not?

We live in a spiritual minefield where every ad on TV and in the news and on the radio we are exposed to these things. God Help us!

FATHER JOE:

You answered your own questions; yes we can sin in the mind and the imagination.

JOHN:

Please, let us stop the garbage that only God can judge a homosexual, while we have no qualms about the state or city or Feds putting some pedophile or murderer away.

As a true Traditionalist, let us just go back to our Baltimore Catechism with respect to Sin, chapter 6:

What is actual sin? Actual sin is any sin of willful thought, word or deed contrary to the law of God.

What is mortal sin? Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.

Why is this sin called Mortal? This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation to the soul.

How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal? To make a sin mortal three things are necessary; a grievous matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

Let’s now jump to chapter 11.

Why did Christ found the Church? Christ founded the Church to teach, govern sanctify and save all men.

Are all men bound to the Church? All are bound and belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it can NOT be saved.

Now this must come as a shock to the Church of Vatican II that teaches that even those that deny Christ such as Jews, Moslems and Hindus can actually be saved, as Mother Teresa actually taught in India.

This is false, and for those who are homosexual which Scripture clearly condemns, this is a mortal sin in any way shape and form, and I can only guess because upwards of 50% of Catholic priests are homosexual themselves, they don’t have the guts to call it like it is.

Christ can only be shedding tears in heaven for what has become of his beloved Church.

FATHER JOE:

I don’t know how many gays may be in the priesthood. Neither can you know. We need to support our priests. Most of our clergy are good men, faithful to their celibacy, their prayers, and to their parish responsibilities. God may also be shedding tears for those quick to condemn priests and for those adding to the wounds of Mother Church. God bless you, you are right about sin. Peace!

MICHAEL:

John, Mother Theresa taught exactly what the Church teaches. We never deny ANYONE the possibility of salvation. We don’t do that because we know that Jesus has been given complete and full authority by His Father to judge and to rule the Earth. All of us will be judged on three criteria:

The light of truth that we have.
The opportunities that God gave us.
The choices that we’ve made.

I disagree with your assertion that 50% of our priests are homosexuals. That’s simply not true and where did you come up with that figure?

Regarding mortal sin as it relates to modern society, there is no such thing as mortal sin anymore. What we have is moral relativism, which is the denial and refusal of objective truth and moral absolutes. I would love to see everyone adhere to fundamental Catholic teachings, but I’m sorry to say that I think that we’re too late for that. This is not 1953 and Fulton Sheen isn’t on prime time TV.

The old man has a strong grip of his short rope and it’s getting tighter and tighter with each passing day. We don’t have any more spiritual unity in this country, which is our main downfall. Despite all of this, I ask myself what I can do to make things better. I know that I can never change another person’s way of thinking by foisting my views upon them. What I do is this; I try as hard as I can in conforming my life to Christ and my will to the inerrant will of God. I can only account for what I do.

JOHN:

Father, my apologies for broad-brushing the priesthood; those like yourself, who are so honorable and devout, are to be role models for sons of the Church like myself. Such is as was the case 50 years ago when the most honorable and proud thing a parent could show off was a son who entered the clergy!

With respect to Mother Teresa, she was a wonderful beautiful woman; but, by many accounts, she was not in any way an Apostle for the Faith. Neither was she in the business of conversions. She actually compromised the Catholic faith in India and taught the teachings of the Church incorrectly, informing the Hindus (a pagan religion— 1st commandment I may add?) that as long as one were a good Hindu, they could be saved. Any 1st year theology student or anyone who ever read the OT or NT knows this is false. She did much good as a HUMANITARIAN; but, in my opinion is not a saint. Sorry.

FATHER JOE:

Mother Teresa always sought to be of one mind and heart with Christ and his Church. She had many wonderful insights into the wonder of human creation and the sanctity of life. She embraced poverty so that she might pour out herself entirely for the poor. She never made any claim about being a theologian. Saints sometimes make practical mistakes and/or fail to make distinctions in the faith that are entirely accurate. But saints are always humble, and like Mother Teresa, always deferred to men like Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). I recall once that she was quite apologetic when she mistakenly received Holy Communion at a Mass offered by a priest of the Patriotic Catholic Church in China. She honestly admitted that she did not know such was prohibited. Although the old Tridentine form was used, she said it looked the same and she had not followed the current political situation between the Church and the government of Communist China. China had invited Mother Teresa and her sisters to start a house in their country. A similar invitation came from Cuba. Doors closed to most in the Western world were opening to her. Such is the mysterious power of love, and a sign that God’s providence was leading her footsteps.

Her sisters in Washington reached out to the poor and offered tender care to those dying from HIV complications. Many of these suffering people were homosexual; and yet, the sisters loved them unconditionally. That is also the face of the Catholic Church on this important issue.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #3 (Debate)

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Father Joe

A Debate with Fred on Homosexuality

FRED:

We Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we do wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. Without Jesus and His deal to make it all right, we would be planning our new residence in Hell. But we have taken Jesus as Savior and Lord and He keeps us in His Father’s loving will. As Lord, Jesus bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, sin is always a violation of love.

FRED:

Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the “sinner”? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? Jesus didn’t. These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God’s grace and live by working the law.

FATHER JOE:

St. Paul’s words cannot be rationalized away. He was the great apostle who spoke about us as living in the freedom of grace that faith brings and not under the yoke of the law. However, he is also the one who exhorts against homosexual activity as a sin that can cost us eternal life. Are you saying that the epistles of St. Paul in the Bible are not God’s inspired Word? The teachings of Christ come through his words and actions and through the witness and message of the Apostles in his living Church.

Your questions are good ones and I will attempt to answer as best I can:

1. Who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship?

There are many victims, beginning with Christ who as the saving Lamb of God suffered and died under the weight of all the sins committed or ever to be committed. If we loved Jesus as we should, then we would make a better effort to live a virtuous life in keeping with the commandments. The Jews understood the commandments against sexual immorality as also referring to homosexual misconduct. It was for that reason that they enacted a dire punishment upon those caught. I must also add a corrective. Sometimes sin is not a matter of an “unloved victim” but rather of a person or persons who were not loved enough. True love requires discipline and sacrifice. When I prepare couples for marriage and discover that they are cohabitating and/or fornicating, their response is often that they love each other “too much” to wait. I would not deny that they love each other, but there is something of a lie about what they say and do. If they loved each other as true Christians should, then they should be willing to undergo any difficulty and sacrifice for the beloved. Thus they lie about the depth of their love. The second lie is their relationship, itself. The marital act is a loving act between a husband and wife. Between anyone else it is a fraud and cannot express what God intends for it to convey. Two homosexual men or two lesbian women might have incredible affection for each other. Because of their sexual disorder, this accompanies a passionate interest as well. But sometimes true love does not mean intimate embracing or being together. Sometimes it means walking away and distance. Sexual love is only permitted between spouses in marriage. Unmarried heterosexuals are not entitled to it. Marriage by definition is a covenant or contract between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as same sex-marriage. Thus, people of the same gender may never engage in sexual acts with one another. I know this sounds harsh, but I believe that homosexuality is viewed as an abomination by God. I see no way around the Scriptural testimony or the basic physical mechanics of human nature. Men and women’s parts fit together and they are made for each other. Homosexuality means trying to rewrite the manual, and the end result does not work very well. There is no potential for offspring and the bodies themselves are sometimes harmed. Love does not have to be sexual. If there is no possibility of reversal, I believe homosexuals are called to a generous and prayerful love in the context of the Church and for the larger community. But this love must be chaste and celibate.

2. Where is the hurt?

The hurt comes from a failure to love each other as God intends. One may not immediately become aware of the harm on a subjective level, but it is there. Just as kids who say they are in love take no note of the STD they transmit from one to the other; homosexual couples may only become aware over time of the emotional frustration inherent in feigning legitimate sexual intercourse. Further, there must be a spiritual effect, given that there is an objectively immoral relationship. As for Catholics, the Magisterium of the Church leaves no doubt that homosexual acts are always and everywhere disordered and wrong. The question might be better phrased as, “Who does it hurt?” I hear this all the time from young people who are sexually active. They learn all too soon that it hurts them and that there are serious consequences for sinful behavior. Casual relationships often break off; as for homosexuals, statistics show that the gay pick-up scene is more the rule than the exception. A husband and wife can truly express the two becoming one flesh. Gay sexual activity always leaves the partners somewhat estranged from each other. No matter how much they try, they are never one flesh. This makes infidelity all the easier. The manner by which they parrot the marital act is in itself somewhat abusive and an ugly caricature of the male-female dynamic.

3. Who could bring suit against the “sinner”?

Traditionally I suppose it was society that punished certain sins judged as criminal. The federal government forced the Mormons of Utah to give up plural marriage and up until recent times, sodomy and homosexual activity were illegal in most places. Indeed, cohabitation between men and women was punishable in some states, like Virginia. Many places were so concerned about it that after five years, the legality of common law marriages was imposed. The judgment that most matters, is that of almighty God. Anyone who contends that God would look the other way or favor homosexual unions is fighting two thousand years of tradition. Contemporary revisionism is on pretty shaky ground.

FRED:

It is noteworthy that Gay people employ themselves in loving professions like medicine, education and the ministry. However, some Christians evidently work in the Biblical judicial system.

FATHER JOE:

That is not fair! All Christians should seek to know the mind of God so that they might better please him. God revealed his truths to us for a reason, not so they may be ignored or rationalized away. Many Christian heterosexuals are also in the service ministries, but any denial of the objective moral order represents a false compassion. Homosexuals are urged to be chaste and celibate, not because we are busy-bodies or want to hurt them, but because we love them and want them to do what is right. It is in their interest to be holy and in a right relationship with God and his Church. This relationship has both a personal and a corporate component. We take St. Paul seriously when he says that certain types of conduct can cost us our place in the kingdom of heaven.

FRED:

Certainly if God didn’t want men to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD” (see Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole “… as with a woman” thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28) for “leaving their natural relations” (i.e., as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men are attracted to other men by definition and by God. They can only imagine what sex “… as with a woman” would be like.

FATHER JOE:

There is some confusion in your words at this point. Fred, you are not being honest with yourself or us. God is abundantly and brutally clear. The issue with the Jews was a lot more complicated than idolatry. Jewish and Christian anthropology will not permit homosexuality. The verdict for such sins in the Old Testament was terrible, either God raining down fire from heaven upon two cities or the stoning to death of those who were exposed. Arguably the ancient Jews were more bloodthirsty than we would care to think about; but penalties aside, homosexuality was never tolerated.

Many in the pagan world (who worshipped false gods or idols) also tolerated homosexuality. We are not to be like the pagans, yesterday or today. Looking at the context that you note from Leviticus, we read:

“You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent” (Leviticus 18:21-23).

Goodness! The ancient Jews classified the evil of homosexuality as between child sacrifice to demons and sex with animals! Certain elements of the Levitical codes were based upon accidentals and custom. These prohibitions here represent a significant understanding of what makes up the substance of humanity: the sanctity life and value of children as opposed to the barren vulgarity of sodomy and zoophilia.

As for Romans, you are presumptuous in saying that “straight Romans” were condemned for homosexual sex. St. Paul is a Pharisee, he knows the Jewish law. The condemnation here is because some followed their inclination, their homosexual disorientation. By the way, bisexuals stand just as condemned by their conduct as others who violate the natural order and God’s will. Sexual disorientation is viewed by the Church as an effect of Original sin. God did not design men to be so orientated. They are wounded or broken.

Imagine, for a moment Fred that God is speaking to you through St. Paul (Romans 1:18-27):

“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

You are suppressing the truth for what you want to selfishly believe. You worship the creature, the folly of men before the wisdom of God. That which should be clear and evident is made foggy in your mind. Here is further Scriptural testimony (1 Timothy 5-11):

“The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance. We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

Jude 6-7 offers another witness on this matter:

“The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

FRED:

“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. (The King James Version is honest.) It premiered in a1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.

FATHER JOE:

Do you prefer the label sodomites? [Given that this biblical term is increasingly viewed as hurtful and offensive, I am weaning myself from using it.] The word “Gay” is unfortunate. I have met very few happy homosexuals.

FRED:

What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus. Instead of judging them, shouldn’t Christians be telling those “sinful” homosexuals that Jesus died for their sins? The stumbling block is that Gays do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians. Know Jesus, know love. No Jesus, no love.

FATHER JOE:

What do you think the Church is trying to do? We want homosexuals to know divine forgiveness and salvation in Christ. However, this requires the admonishment: repent and believe! If we did not love them, we would keep our mouths closed and allow them to continue toward perdition. We speak out because we love and care. Unfortunately, certain homosexuals interpret this as hatred and being mean-spirited. Jesus is both the judge of the world and the lover of souls. He is Divine Justice and Divine Mercy, in person. You focus upon his mercy but neglect his justice. The problem is not that homosexuals “do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians,” but rather, that they are resisting conversion and hard obedience, as well as those Christians who love them too much not to tell them the truth. Homosexual acts are wrong. God does not approve. Embrace purity and platonic friendships.

Discussion

TASTI:

Self-righteousness, however packaged, using scriptures to legislate your brand of religious morality against a group of people in a democratic society is simply reflective of the same kind of intolerance that goes back ages. Scriptures have been used to justify racism, hate and all kinds of acts against mankind in the name of God. Thankfully, there are those within the Catholic and Christian community who don’t share this same kind of narrow perspective. The fight for civil rights for the LGBT community will continue and will eventually win.

FATHER JOE:

Who is self-righteous? I quoted Scripture and the universal catechism. Your problem is not with me but with God and his Church. Apparently you have not read all my posts on this subject, because I believe that everyone, including homosexuals, should be treated with respect. I have friends who are gay. However, I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. They disagree with me and I disagree with them. Why would you deny me the right in a democratic society to express my ideas, no matter how offensive you might find them? I advocate no violence or gross acts of discrimination. I believe in working within the system, yes, even though the legislation and judicial process might very well go the other way. I do not believe in policing bedrooms and neither do I believe in a totalitarianism that masquerades as democratic liberalism. As for Catholics who think differently, yes, some do, and that is their choice. However, as a priest and a Catholic Christian, I remain with the solid teaching of Christ and his Church and not with that of the contemporary dissenters. They base their views less upon the preaching of the Church than upon the views of MTV and a secular culture.

LARA:

At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, Father, this question has occurred to me: does our incessant insanity ever cause our Creator to weep?

STEVE:

“They are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-32)

…to me this sounds like the self-appointed kings and queens I see braying continuously about the perceived evils in others.

Before swinging that bat so widely, let’s just purge the church of all the homosexuals.

Then let’s see how many guys are left standing there in their satins and velvets and embroidered hats.

FATHER JOE:

Most of the clergy I know and with whom I have worked are faithful to their celibacy. I would suspect they are also mostly heterosexuals, although a few bad eggs have given the Church pretty bad press. Pray that priests and bishops will be faithful to God, loving and protecting their flocks. By the way, even REAL MEN can wear the fancy uniforms. Peace!

GRAHAM:

Make no mistake about it: practicing homosexuality is a sin that will send people to hell; but, let’s not forget adultery, fornication, lying (white lies included), hatred, malice, envy and so forth. Read the 17 works of the flesh by Paul.

However, I do believe there are those individuals who are truly born with a desire for their own sex; it is a curse brought down through the generations— and it is an abnormality. God said He would visit the sins of the fathers from 3-4 generations ago upon the children.

(Exodus 20:5) “… for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”

In conclusion, the desire for your own sex, in and of itself, is not sin, just temptation. If, however, that desire is put into practice, you have sinned.

Love the Lord your God and He will make your ways straight (no pun intended).
(Exodus 20:6) “And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

FRACTAL:

Love is good, God is Love. Liberty is good, too.

RENEGADE ICONOCLAST:

Mat. 7:1-5 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

speck: ‘sin’ between consenting adults
plank: pedophiles running around in the Church

FATHER JOE:

You would quote Scripture to get me to stop quoting Scripture? Pleeease! As for your “speck” and “plank” distinction, it is misapplied. Serious sins are all planks: fornication, homosexuality, as well as pederasty and pedophilia— all planks that need removal if blindness is not to become permanent. Mortal sin is mortal sin, although I would grant you that the sin between a man and woman is “according to nature” and the others are “opposed or in contradiction to nature.”

MORSE:

“…and begin to impose that lifestyle on me, my children and those who have not chosen such a life,” this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

No one is imposing anything on you. No one is forcing you or your children to be gay. We’re just trying to keep people not unlike yourself from imposing your lifestyle on others.

Here’s a nice metaphor: if you’re hitting someone with a stick, and I take the stick away, I’m not imposing on your rights. I’m protecting the right of the person you’re hitting.

JOHN:

Homosexuality is definitely wrong and serious sin. Yet that does not mean that they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. They can repent and become chaste in their lives and receive the sacraments if they free themselves from this sin. Yes it is hard to reason with homosexuals, abortionists and atheists that get ugly and turn their heads from logic. I personally thought I could change them but it is not me, it is God that does the changing.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #2 (Catechism)

Posted on March 11, 2012 by Father Joe

This post is a revision of comments made some years ago. I thought I would revisit the topic of the Church’s view of homosexuality and various responses it elicited. Rather than one inordinately long post, this is the second of a series.

A proper understanding of the postulate, “Only God can judge… but that verdict is not pending,” permits little room to escape revealed and objective morality. Homosexual attraction and “sense of self” is a serious DISORIENTATION. While in itself that may not bring down the full weight of culpability; practicing a homosexual lifestyle is explicitly condemned in the Bible. It is not an accidental or trivial matter that can change with the times and morphing cultures. Indeed, the deontological prohibition is confirmed by a teleological appreciation of natural law. Homosexual acts are grievously sinful. While I cannot speak about individual souls or persons, certainly these are the types of acts that can cost one the gift of salvation. Neither I nor the Church defines who is or is not in hell. There is no reverse polarity to the canonization process, where sinners are cursed while saints are beatified. I am well aware that some minimize the worth of divine positive revelation. However, while the Church comes chronologically before the New Testament and a complete Christian Bible; having been ratified by the Church, every Christian stands under the scrutiny of God’s Word and is not the master of revelation and truth. I am amazed sometimes that people fault the Pope for things about which he has no authority to change. The Magisterium interprets and defines Christian doctrine; it does not assemble it brand new or offer something in radical contradiction to previously defined objective truth.

My emphasis here is not upon human subjectivity, but the absolute claims that come from God and his revelation. Subjectivity may mitigate fault because of weakness or ignorance; however, it does not make objective truth into something purely relative. As for the issue of conscience, such must be properly formed and instructed. There is no way for an educated Catholic not to appreciate or to know about the Church’s stance on homosexuality. I will admit that homosexuality is a malady of the mind, but it does not strip one of complete freedom, that is unless we are also talking about a person who suffers from serious mental retardation. Children and those with gross mental defects are blameless and innocent because they do not have a sufficient capacity for reason. Given the context of the average homosexual, I fail to see how absolutely all guilt might be escaped.

It may be a mistake here (regarding dissenters and political proponents) to paint the picture of a benevolent homosexual, misled but well-meaning. Yes, there are a few who quietly struggle while respecting traditional values. I have known reverent souls among them who regularly frequent the sacrament of Confession. However, note the Hallmark card. The post is about something entirely different… the push for gay marriages and the social acceptance of homosexuality as normative. Homosexuality has become increasingly militant with vulgar public acts. Unless one is discussing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, there is little else comparable in the Scriptures. God’s judgment was terrible upon them. We may be invoking God’s justice upon us, too. Little ones are being led astray, not simply because there is an absence of good catechesis but because secular modernity preaches its message more effectively than we do.

The subjective element is left to the divine judgment of individual souls. However, we can say that regarding artificial contraception, abortion and homosexual acts— that they constitute at all times and circumstances, the grievous “matter” of mortal sin. They are those types of acts which can forfeit our relationship with God and blacken the soul. While God is certainly generous with his mercy, we should not commit the sin of PRESUMPTION in supposing that people cannot in general commit such mortal sins. Salvation is purely a gift, not something that we deserve or can merit apart from Christ.

Here is the teaching of the Catholic Church, in her own words (the universal catechism):

[CCC 2357] Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

[CCC 2358] The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

[CCC 2359] Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Discussion

MICHAEL:

What a cross!

Isn’t it remotely possible for a person to be attracted to members of the same sex and still be chaste? It certainly is. If love is in the will; then a person (gay or not) can choose to love God by not participating in sinful behavior.

Not every homosexual is a practicing homosexual.

If I were gay, and thank God I’m not, I would be scared to death of engaging in such a sinful act with anyone. The injustice already has the penalty built in, as you say.

DURCK:

I have read the dialogues (in this and the previous post). As you all know, the homosexual and lesbian lifestyles are being incorporated into the curricula of grade schools, high schools and colleges.

Are we not responsible, and therefore accountable, for protecting our children from such distortions in thinking? Are not those non-practicing homosexuals and lesbians similarly responsible to promote purity in our children, regardless of their own inclinations?

Respecting our gay brothers and sisters is not an issue for me. What I don’t and will not respect is the insinuation made by many gays that their lifestyle is “natural” and therefore acceptable.

I interpret the defense of “only God can judge,” as a means to deflect responsibility, just as politicians avoid responsibility for supporting abortion by insinuating the issue is above their pay grade.

Is the heart of the matter not the avoidance of accountability?

FATHER JOE:

We make moral judgments all the time. The expression, “Only God can judge,” probably relies upon a type of atheism (which is at the heart of moral relativism) or the hope that God is so distant that he does not really care what people do. What such critics are really saying is, “No one can judge me, not you and not God.” We have the natural law and divine positive law; do they expect God to come out from behind a cloud and give them an update on their status? No, they do not, and so saying that “only God” can judge them is an attempt to avoid a “negative” judgment all together. They refuse to accept any judgment other than a lenient and positive one.

MICHAEL:

We were all better off when they were “in the closet.” They have no shame today.

LARA:

Thanks, Father. I’m growing tired of God’s name being thrown about with such flagrant disregard, not to mention being tired of having to defend my own belief.

Living the Catholic faith is no walk through the park (as I’m sure you’re aware). I fail miserably and often, but I march on, Father, doing the best I can. I’ve behaved wrongly and plenty of times— but I recognize wrong and try never, ever, to rationalize my behavior in order to pacify my conscience.

I’m simply losing my tolerance for others who commit wrong and do just that.

MICHAEL:

Lara, the joy comes from knowing that you do “good” and that your life can make a positive difference in this crazy mixed up world. What they do is on them.

LARA:

True Michael, but we, and our children, have to live with their foolishness.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #1 (Scripture)

Posted on March 10, 2012 by Father Joe

When the topic of homosexuality is raised, immediately there are those who deny that we can make a moral evaluation. We are told, “It is not for us to judge, only God.”

Adapted New Hallmark Card for Gay Marriage

Yes, it must be admitted that God is the judge of such things, but that verdict is not pending but has already been expressed by his revealed Word:

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-32)

Discussion

MICHAEL:

His mercy endures forever.

There’s always the mercy of God for those who seek it with a contrite and sincere heart.

No one has to remain in a perpetual state of mortal sin.

Those who have disordered passions or unnatural desires can always ask God, our Lady, and St. Joseph for the gift, grace and virtue of Chastity. They will come around.

Chastity means living purely for God alone in a state of grace.

For the unrepentant reprobates, they will never know what they’ve missed out on. God leaves them to themselves and He always punishes in areas of disobedience— AIDS for instance.

DAN:

I have to admit to attempting to “argue” and “reason” with people in the “blogosphere.” I find that it is impossible— especially with those posting on anti-Catholic blogs. Any argument that I have offered that tries to be reasonable, is usually met with an amazing amount of name calling and anger.

Without even specifically mentioning homosexuality, or same sex attraction, I have been castigated, for even daring to suggest that perhaps the fulfillment of our personhood is better served by trying to over-come our tendencies rather than indulging them.

It seems that we’ve got ourselves a really, really, self-centered, immature culture at this time.

VISITOR:

In my opinion, homosexuals know that homosexuality is not natural. Virtually every living human being possesses a conscience— so do homosexual men and lesbian women.

There are numerous accounts illustrating how homosexuals and lesbians, who have rejected the lifestyle, almost instantly become targets of relentless abuse and harassment by those who remain in it. Clearly, crisis of conscience is at work behind that level of anger.

Today, narcissism reigns. Reality has become personal perspective. Lies have become the truth— but only to those who can’t face the truth. Or won’t.

Every one of us must grow up, eventually, either gracefully or kicking and screaming. Some of us may not grow up until the day we die.

May we all be in a state of grace when that day comes.

OPUS: (in reference to Hallmark same-sex card)

Hallmark has made a small percentage of their profits from me since I was teenager. They’ll make from me not another nickel.

LARA:

Only God can judge homosexuality. Only God can judge whether or not abortion is wrong. Only God can judge if euthanasia is murder. What is this?

When God said we must become as little children, He didn’t mean for us to interpret that statement literally, but you’d certainly think so from the statements made by those advocating homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia.

Reading and listening to the never-ending distortions of what’s right and what’s wrong is enough to send an adult’s head spinning off of their spine— imagine the effect all of this craziness has on children? For crying out loud, the animal kingdom appears less cruel to its own than are many human beings to other human beings. Animals can’t be human, but, evidently, many humans seem satisfied to take on the behavior of animals to justify their actions.

Enough! God said plenty about homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion in His Bible, which, by the way, APPLIES TO THE WHOLE OF THE HUMAN RACE. That includes ALL OF US, not only to those of us who read its contents and follow its precepts.

Let the world exhort that insanity is sane by all of you wayward children (and you know who you are) who advocate sodomy, murder and every other perversion you’re currently advocating, in the vain attempt to clear your consciences— and you won’t, by the way.

But those of us trying to live Christian lives are not standing by to have the grossest distortions of right and wrong imposed upon our lives or upon the lives of our children.

Think we don’t have that right? Only God can judge.

DURCK:

Am I alone in interpreting as temper-tantrums all of this wailing coming from the homosexual community in that no one has a say in their behavior except for God? (Are they serious about this or do they not believe in God and are using Him as a diversion?)

Assuming they do believe, then yes, I imagine God will have the final say about their lives, after their consciences hand them over. Men or women who live the gay lifestyle are, indeed, free (willed) to live as they choose. After all, practicing sodomists and lesbians are, in truth, our brothers and sisters too.

However, when my homosexual and lesbian sisters and brothers imply that their lifestyle is moral and acceptable (by vainly legislating laws to that effect) and begin to impose that lifestyle on me, my children and those who have not chosen such a life, then I’m taking issue with that right here and right now.

And I will continue to do so with a clear conscience.

MAX:

“Only God can judge… but that verdict is not pending.”

On an objective basis one would be hard-pressed as a Catholic to argue with either part of that statement. . However, it is another matter on a subjective basis. There are many people who have done acts which are objectively wrong but after discerning their consciences and securing information from whatever source available which hey honestly considered reliable, decided on a course of action which turned out to be objectively wrong but for which they incur no subject moral guilt. This situation could arise from many sources: diminished capacity for moral judgment, educational insufficiency, paucity of moral upbringing, intellectual limitations, etc. In the secular world we live in today in this country and in Western Europe, the vast majority of people have to rely primarily on poorly formed consciences. Unfortunately, that is due to a failure of parents and the Church to develop an adequate catecheses and/or talented apologists. Those are the ones we should be praying for because they are in jeopardy. As the Gospel tells us, not all are called to be teachers; but be assured, that those who are will be held to a HIGHER STANDARD. And, those who would mislead a little one, it would be better if he had never been born.

One would indeed sound foolish to hold that every man or woman who engaged in artificial contraception or for that matter any woman, Catholic, Protestant, Jew or atheist who secured an abortion was subjectively guilty of mortal sin. They ALL committed an objectively morally wrong act but as to their subjective disposition— well, that’s where the judgment of God and the pending verdict comes in.

The above is, and has been, the teachings of my Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church for centuries, and thank God they are because they are the only teachings that are consonant with the image of a just and merciful God.

MICHAEL:

The wages of sin is death.

Yes, God has already revealed how and when He will judge. He also gave everyone a conscience. What we do with it is on us.

This judgment does not apply to those individuals choosing to live a devout and chaste life. It can be done. God loves the sinner and hates the sin.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 4 Comments »

How Catholic are You?

Posted on February 18, 2012 by Father Joe

We can test to see how badly infected our people are with doubt and faithlessness. Here are some sample questions:

1. Do you believe that deliberately missing Sunday Mass is a mortal sin, as detailed in the precepts of the Church?

2. Do you believe that premarital sex and/or cohabitation is a mortal sin?

3. Do you believe that a Catholic can get married validly outside the Church and how can this be if it is a sacrament?

4. Are you for or against the legal choice for abortion even though the Church calls it the murder of ensouled human beings?

5. Do you believe that the marital act must always be that type of act that is open to mutual self-giving and the generation of new human life or do you favor the use of artificial contraception?

6. The Church teaches that same-sex attraction is a disorder and that its pursuit is a violation of the natural law and is seriously sinful. Do you believe this?

7. Is the Eucharist a symbolic presence using bread and wine, a nostalgic remembrance or the actual Risen Christ (divinity and humanity, body and blood)?

8. Do you ever go to Confession? Do you believe that the priest has the power to forgive sins? Do we really need the priest for this at all?

9. Is the Mass a real sacrifice just as the death and oblation of Jesus on the Cross?

10. Does it really matter what one believes as long as he or she is a good person? Is one Church pretty much as good as another? Is it intolerant to insist that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established directly by Christ?

11. Do you believe that the Pope as Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction and is given the gift of infallibility in teaching about faith and morals?

12. Do you pray daily and if so how do you pray? Do you really think someone is listening? Do you remember the various types of prayer?

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Church, Commandments, Contraception, Discipleship, Magisterium, Mass, Morality, Pope, Pro-Life, Questions, Sexuality, Sin | 2 Comments »

Is the HHS Compromise Really a Compromise?

Posted on February 12, 2012 by Father Joe

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Wuerl’s response to compromise.

CLICK HERE to read Cardinal Dolan’s letter to fellow bishops.

Who is the architect of this fiasco with the HHS?

The buck stops with the President and the head of the department, which he appointed: Kathleen Sebelius. What is her background as a “Catholic”?

When she was governor, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas told her that she “should stop receiving Communion until she publicly repudiates her support of abortion.” More recently, Archbishop Raymond F. Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis but now prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest court, ruled that Mrs. Sebelius should not approach the altar for Communion in the United States. Despite pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin and now she would entice the bishops and the rest of the Church to join her.

In 2008, Sebelius vetoed House Substitute for Senate Bill 389, titled the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act by its sponsors. Proponents of the bill claimed the legislation would strengthen late-term abortion laws and prevent “coerced abortions” particularly with respect to minors.

She has been given high ratings and endorsement from Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider around. It has made a financial “killing” in destroying unborn children under the banner of women’s rights.

The administration was SHOCKED into making a compromise… not because religious liberty was esteemed as an important value in itself.

The Obama administration hopes that the U.S. bishops will accept its proposed compromise (February 10, 2012). However, while we are still awaiting word from our shepherds, I still have serious reservations. The administration was shocked that even liberal Catholic voices were joining the chorus in deploring the initial policy as encroachment upon religious liberty. It was certain that there would be no movement of the Obama Whitehouse away from the giving women free access to contraception. But as Republicans picked up on the issue, election strategists urged an immediate counter-strategy. The offer of a year of grace was insufficient. Is this the best for which we can hope? Might this merely be a ploy to defuse the situation while really changing very little? Catholic parishes, schools, charities, and hospitals should not be forced to provide birth control to employees since such would violate Catholic teaching against artificial contraception. That is the bottom line!

Even if the institution is protected; what about the rights of individual believers? What about individuals and organizations that are not part of the Church administration but are Catholic in values? EWTN, for instance, is a lay organization with a lay board.

The sentiments of Catholics and other pro-life Christians would not be respected by this change. The Church is more than the institution but is found in her membership. Their personal religious rights and conscience would not be respected. I know a doctor who runs her own practice and refuses to prescribe birth control. Now, she would still be forced to pay for it as a health benefit for employees! That is wrong and the Church needs to be a voice for people like her. Similarly, I know a man who refused to take a vaccine because there was the remote use of embryonic material from an abortion. He would rather close shop than add his money to the purchase of abortifacients.

The First Amendment protects not only the rights of churches but the individuals who make up those faith communities. Even if Catholics should themselves personally dissent, continued membership implies that they still respect (on some level) the teachings and the authority of the Church. I suspect that President Obama miscalculated in thinking that Church teaching was subject to polls or that liberal Catholics could force further passivity upon the bishops. This new measure might protect Church institutions and pamper dissenters, but it would hang faithful Catholic citizens out to dry. Their rights would not be respected.

Nothing has really changed, what we have here is only magical sleight-of-hand.

The revised rule says that religious organizations would not have to offer or pay for contraception. So far, so good; but then it stipulates that health insurers would have to take up the cost and provide it directly to women for free. Does this really leave the employer out of the equation? It seems to me that what we have here is a new version of the old shell game. Nothing is really free. The money is going to have to come from somewhere. What will happen is that premiums will go up and people will pay more for a sick person’s needed antibiotic to make up for a promiscuous woman’s contraceptive.

What about those dioceses which are self-insured? Would this force us out of the insurance business?

Another wrinkle, and I see this as very problematical in my own Archdiocese, is that we are self-insured. There is no absolutely independent insurance entity to which we can give the dubious honor of providing contraception. I suppose such a measure would also make it hard for practicing Catholics to function at the leadership level or as CEOs of insurance agencies.

Where do we go from here?

It is not clear to me that the Obama administration really wants to go to the bargaining table. However, the bishops have suggested that this newest offer is a sign that he is willing to make some kind of compromise. It is my interpretation and I admit to being fallible, that there remains a serious hurdle and that we must take to heart Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s remarks in The Wall Street Journal, “Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience.” This really says it all and is the line from which we must not retreat.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has made this statement: “The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.” The statement continues, “We will therefore continue–with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency–our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government.”

We must urge Congress to pass the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Debating the Legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Father Joe

As the American bishops have faced the crisis to religious liberty presented by the Obama Administration’s requirement for artificial contraception, sterilization and abortifacients in our health plans; it occurred to me that we were struggling with the ghost of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, no not his actual soul, but of his ideas and dissent.

Although Senator Ted Kennedy has been gone since 2009, critics wrongly still like to enumerate about his many personal scandals and general lack of discretion. Indeed, although they are all dead, the Kennedy boys are still the fodder for sensational tabloid journalism. True or not, I have no desire to enumerate upon such things. I still insist that ours has to be the posture of prayer for a man who was baptized and raised as a Catholic. God will be his judge, even as we continue to repair the damage that he did to the witness of the Church and the moral standing of our nation. Indeed, for all we know, God’s grace might have brought him to repentance and conversion at the last moments of life.

The president and many of his compatriots in the Democrat party (a fair number who are Catholics) have carried on the agenda that he pursued. NARAL had awarded the Massachusetts senator a 100% approval rating. He was the Catholic voice for the culture of death for a quarter of a century, supporting not only abortion but partial birth infanticide, the use of embryonic human beings for research, and same sex unions for homosexuals and lesbians. He also championed repression against free speech and religious liberties (at least for conservative, orthodox or biblical churches) by expanding “hate crimes” legislation to include criticism of gays.

He was also responsible for the increased politicization of the Supreme Court by his pro-abortion litmus test against the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, a strict-constructionist, in 1987. Judge Bork came into the Catholic Church a few years ago. At the time of his death, Senator Kennedy was advocating health care reform that would guarantee federal money for artificial contraception and abortions. His objective has now been met by the Department of Health and Human Services under President Obama.

While many acclaimed Senator Kennedy as a hero for women and the poor. Many pro-lifers regarded him as one of the nation’s chief enemies of motherhood and the poorest of the poor, innocent and voiceless children in the womb. When he died, he was favorably eulogized by representatives of Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgendered groups. They wept at the loss of one of their great defenders and proponents. Pro-life advocates observed that it was too bad that they neither wept for the murdered children nor about the decomposition of morals and marriage.

Supporters argue that Ted Kennedy was a pivotal figure in the transformation of the Democrat Party and its agenda, making possible the Obama presidency. He certainly made his impact felt upon history. He passed away from his brain cancer in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. First Joseph, then John, next Robert and then Teddy— the last of the Kennedy brothers went to God. But their convictions, both good and bad, are still with us. We applaud the emphasis upon racial justice, equality in opportunity for our citizens, the support and hope given to the poor, the protection of worker’s rights, etc. But we must lament the liberalism that now feeds a liberal secular humanism at war with the Church while seeking to redefine our nature and to strip away the rights of the unborn.

Discussion from 2009

The catalyst for this discussion was the death of Senator Edward Kennedy and his mixed legacy. Be warned that some comments lack charity and suffer from bigotry.

GODLESS AMERICAN: Ah, more religious fanatics that demand people follow their beliefs when they can’t seem to follow their own. Cast a lot of stones, do we?

FATHER JOE: People of your sort would condemn Jesus and the apostles as fanatics, too. Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees as kin to the murderers of the prophets. It is not my fault that people pledged to promote the public good should violate their basic principles in enabling the murder of children in the womb. It is not my fault that Morality 101 should be dismissed as intolerance toward grievous sexual sin. I have always acknowledged myself as a sinner; however, that does not mean I must be silent against the wrongs committed by others. Even you judge, despite an atheistic attitude, because you condemn me. I can pray for the poor man and I can remember you to God. I cannot pretend that grievous wrongs are okay.

GODLESS AMERICAN: Father Joe, I’m atheist, there are no tenets against judging others. I freely judge whomever I choose. Those are your beliefs that you refuse to follow, not mine. Yes, I would have labeled the disciples as fanatics, and Jesus if I thought he actually existed. There is no hell, and there is no heaven. It’s sad that you’ve decided to dedicate your life to the hatred of other people, instead of spreading love and acceptance which some religious people choose to do. Your actions are no better than the Muslims that attacked America on 9/11.

FATHER JOE: Judgment about sin and judgment (i.e. condemnation) of sinners are two different things. Evidently you do not understand Christianity as much as you claim. Indeed, your dogmatism against Christ and the truths of religion is itself a kind of false religion or anti-religious faith. The most you could honestly embrace is a kind of agnosticism; in other words, that you doubt the existence of God and an afterlife. The denial of Jesus as a historical figure is pure bigotry and ignorance. You might not believe that he is God or that he performed miracles; but, there is sufficient evidence for his existence, even outside the Bible. The fact that you would compare me to the criminals who killed thousands of people on 9-11 shows the depth of your irrationality and depravity. I rarely ban people from my site, but congratulations, you pushed the right buttons. Time restraints and health concerns prevent me from trying to correct the lies and self-deception of people like you. Have a good life, and after your have gone for all the gusto of a dissolute life, look forward to being forgotten and either cremated or devoured by the worms. I suspect you will also be surprised, when you appear before the judgment seat of Christ. However, I will pray for you and if possible offer my poor intercession for your soul, which exists regardless of what you think.

BOB: Godless American, I’m afraid you are neither. Such monumental ignorance is hardly deserving of a response.

BRONX BILL: Hey Godless American, what offends you about Fr. Joe’s initial remarks? Except for the sentence, “It’s too bad they don’t weep for the murdered children…,” this entry could have appeared on Slate. He is summarizing the impact of Ted Kennedy’s work objectively and with minimal commentary. Or is it the lack of fawning praise for this “liberal lion” that has you upset? By the way, how the (he–two sticks) do you prove a universal negative statement – twice: “there is no hell” and “there is no heaven.” Or does this dogmatic proclamation come from a personal revelation you received? One would suspect that you are impressed with such emotional lectures as Senator Kennedy was known to give, untroubled by the rules of logic. When you speak of hatred of others, it’s best to start by looking in the mirror. There’s more intolerance in your words then in those of Father Joe that you are quick to condemn.

HOWARD: Father Joe, I can just say – “Amen.” Thank you for speaking the truth about this man. He was not a great American. He helped lead America down a horrible road – far away from God. God will judge America and Mr. Kennedy.

MARY: Thank you, Father Joe. I, too, hope that Senator Kennedy had the opportunity to reconcile with the Church before his death. If a public announcement is not made that he repudiated all his anti-life stances prior to a public funeral Mass, the scandal of Notre Dame will be child’s play in comparison. I am so grateful for the Catholic clergy (sadly few and far between) that stand up for the teachings of the Church… and I must now place you in the company of Archbishop Raymond Burke. My heart breaks for our Catholic young people and all everyday Catholics in the pews who are being led by the example of so many clergy to believe it is okay to ignore Church teaching on the life issues and not endanger their souls and the souls that are entrusted to them.

FATHER JOE:

There are some words which are foul or mean and I will not use them. I changed this post many times and gave the benefit of a doubt to critics. Maybe I am naïve, but is the word “sodomite” now classified as a “bad” or “unacceptable” word? It was used in Scripture and that is where I first encountered it. Given what it means, how can one clean it up? The word “gay” is hardly descriptive and it destroys an otherwise perfectly good word for happiness. In any case, I have deleted the word from my post. Sorry if some view it as vulgar, but I intended it only as it has been traditionally defined in law and in reference to the Biblical testimony. There is nothing I can do about the pejorative connotation, especially since it refers to sinful acts that fall under the condemnation of God. But, if it is an unnecessary stumbling block for this particular discussion, I am not tied to the biblical term and will substitute a softer nomenclature in the post above… this time around. But, I do have my limits.

Some object to my calling abortion, “the murder of babies.” Again, I am not into the misdirecting semantics of speaking about “CHOICE” and “the selective termination of embryos or fetuses.”

Kennedy was lauded as the senator who cared the most about women. Well, I am all for saving women’s lives; however, some of those women are still in the womb. Human life is incommensurate.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the world and it makes big bucks on abortion. They own a lot of politicians and manipulate parties. Repression of speech and persecution of the Church is the end result. If they have their way, health plans operated by the Church will have to offer coverage for artificial contraception and abortion. Catholic doctors will have to do referrals for abortion and prescribe the abortifacient pills or face the loss of their licenses to practice. Catholic hospitals will be compelled to close because of such manipulation. Adoption services, as in Boston, will shut down because same-sex couples will insist upon adopting innocent children.

Universal healthcare, as it is currently being orchestrated, will mean more tax dollars into the pockets of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Almost everyone on Clinton’s staff had past ties to them and many in the Obama administration did legal work for Planned Parenthood. Even good organizations like the NAACP have been infected by the acceptance of abortion as a solution to their problems instead of as a form of black genocide.

Kennedy helped to create this nightmare world. May God have mercy on his soul.

SOJOURNER: “It is impossible for us to refrain from speaking of what we have seen and heard”. (Acts 4:20). It is not for us to condemn; however, we are required to speak the truth and guide those who cannot see to it. This is the direction we receive at the end of every Mass. Jesus also lost many followers for speaking the truth. He lost thousands on the day he told them, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no salvation.” To whom should we go? I choose my Lord and my God!

AL: Father Joe, thank you for your words. It helped me to understand and put my thoughts into an ordered manner less vehement than many who covered the Senator’s passing.

BRONX BILL:

Father Joe, concerning the proposed Health Care measures, members of Congress put up a smoke screen when they claimed that abortion was not included. Explicitly it is not, it is already presumed to be a standard benefit. In order that tax payer money not go for abortion, this needs to be made explicit with an amendment. As for Planned Parenthood, Congressman Mike Pence tried to cut off funding for them but was unsuccessful.

Yes, this is part of Big Ted’s liberal legacy: helping a privileged elite profit from the sufferings of the poor and defenseless, particularly the unborn. As with Dr. Tiller, I am not sad to hear of his passing. The dream that Kennedy was so interested in keeping alive was death for millions of infants waiting to be born. Now his dreams are dead and he must face the author of life. Would that he have felt remorse and confessed in his final moments that in due course he may find eternal peace.

NICK: Father Joe, thank you for your thoughts on Ted Kennedy. I agree completely. Also, thank you for this website. Your words are always encouraging and truthful, I just wish more priests were like you. God bless you!

COWARDLY: Father Joe is what’s wrong with the Catholic Church.

FATHER JOE: I take it then that you are pro-abortion and pro-homosexual unions. Sorry, but I cannot change the law of God.

COWARDLY: You are a terrible terrible person, how dare you speak about Sen. Kennedy like that.

FATHER JOE: I did not speak about the particulars of his personal life. However, his dissent against Catholic teaching and the Gospel of Life is part of the public record. You might be proud of it. I am ashamed that a Catholic could so betray the basic principles of our faith and human dignity. Many bishops and priests would have refused him Holy Communion. Some are upset that I would still pray for him; well, that is too bad. I am pledged to pray for souls, even those who are most reprehensible. I will add you to my prayer list.

COWARDLY: Re-read that part of the Bible about loving thy neighbor. You’re not winning anybody over.

FATHER JOE: I do love my neighbor, but love of God is first. We cannot betray Christ for human approval or to appease fickle sentiment. My job is not to make you like me but to preach the truth for the salvation of souls.

COWARDLY: This is the kind of [expletive deleted] that I’d expect to see on WorldNetDaily.com, not on the blog of a Catholic priest.

FATHER JOE: Check around, I am one of the kinder “orthodox” Catholic priests writing upon this subject. Maybe you have fallen into the clutches of those rascals who are silent about abortion, artificial contraception, divorce and adultery and remarriage, homosexual disorientation, etc.? I have not cursed or used vulgar language, as you have. I have urged hope for repentance, conversion and salvation. I can pray for the man but I cannot hail as a hero one who stood for so many things which I think are repulsive to God and degrading to human dignity and the sanctity of life.

A READER: Ted Kennedy cheated on an exam in college and was expelled. He also walked away from a car accident that resulted in another person’s death and didn’t report it until the next day. Now, we are making him out to be some kind of hero? Sorry, but I disagree with those of you who criticize a priest who has the intelligence and courage to speak out and share the actual facts about Ted Kennedy.

FATHER JOE: Young men often do many stupid things. My concern is more what the mature Kennedy did politically to help refashion American society along the lines of a radical liberalism often at odds with Christian morality and natural law. Again, we should all pray for his soul.

CHRIS: By now I’m sure Teddy knows just how well that whole abortion thing worked out for him. Money and family influence only work here on earth.

RICK: My prayer is that there would be a 100,000 Fr. Joe’s in our pulpits. Then for sure we wouldn’t have had the audacity to negate God’s condemnation of contraception. In 1930 the Anglicans were the first to condone birth control, with all Protestant denominations following. This has led inexorably to all the sexual debauchery we’ve been subjected to in the last 80 years. Kennedy was one of the main “Catholics” leading this rush to change God’s laws. If the Catholic Church had enough Fr. Joe’s, Kennedy would have been long ago excommunicated along with Pelosi, Biden, Leahy, Mikulski, Kerry, Durbin and many more “Catholics” in name only. Let us rejoice in the Lord for raising up Fr. Joe and pray that many more would have the courage to stand up and defend the faith.

MARY FRANCES: Rick, I’m praying the same right along with you. Father Joe, God bless you! May you always be the shining example that you are of courageous virtue in speaking the truth. And may your brother priests be likewise. I have placed you among the group of people in my heart for whom I pray daily.

JOHN: Ted Kennedy did more than anyone else in Congress to promote and protect abortion, and he is a Catholic. I would think every Catholic Priest should point this out.

FIN-TASTIC: Judging by the popularity of his blog, it seems Father Joe is winning over a lot of people!

RD: Great words, Father Joe. Something tells me, that like me, you did not have the stomach to endure Obama’s eulogy. Who was brave (or irreverent) enough to take Communion at the funeral Mass?

JOHN: Well said Father Joe! I won’t speak ill of the dead, but…it is about [deleted] time Ted made his exit. I have prayed that the people of Massachusetts vote in a replacement who has the kind of integrity which Ted found wanting and if the new senator is a Catholic, he or she will act like it means something.

PATRICK: Fear of the word ‘sodomite” is just MORE proof those liberals can’t face truth– instead they try to change the language. I wish the news would focus on some important things now.

MARY: I cannot disagree about abortion, etc. I am strongly pro-life; however, I am extremely distressed about the “taking communion if you are pro-choice is a mortal sin” stance. How DARE WE… How dare we decide what Catholic receives communion and what Catholic does not? Are we going to ask everyone in line – “excuse me, are you pro-choice?” This stand is becoming frightening and out of hand. I have talked to my brother-in-law about this, who is a priest as well. If someone has not had an abortion then who do we think we are? We are absolutely no different than the Pharisees with this mindset. We are not Christ-like in our thoughts and actions. Why don’t we just start another crusade while we are at it? The pope makes it quite clear as well that we are to take care of each other – a seamless cloak from the cradle to the grave…as Christ would. Does no one see how UN-Christian it is to argue against paying taxes (Those ridiculous Dems are at it again!)? How unloving to our neighbors.

FATHER JOE:

The Church has the authority to impose interdict and to refuse the sacraments to those who cause public scandal, teach heresy, and who are not disposed for the sacrament because of mortal sin. Usually, we ask people to make this determination for themselves and if they are not prepared, to go to Mass but to excuse themselves from Holy Communion. Priests will tell people in private and in the confessional not to receive. It is doubtful you will see many priests reproach individuals from the pulpit or altar.

Public scandal and outward dissent is a far more serious matter. While the reception of Holy Communion by such people would constitute sacrilege and mortal sin; if kept quiet, they only damn themselves. In contrast, public division with the Church and then the outrage of receiving the sacrament of unity is a serious offense and disconnect with the faith witness that should be exhibited. It can lead others to sin or make them feel that anyone can receive regardless of faith and morals. Would we readily give Holy Communion to those who supported racial cleansing as in Hitler’s Germany, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa? Would we be comfortable in giving Holy Communion to those who supported a politics of hate and segregation which resulted in lynching and other racist acts? The problem is that we do not regard the unborn and the issue of abortion as on the same level. The Holy Father has written, even back when he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger, that sometimes the sacrament must be withheld. The seamless garment argument, much misunderstood and abused, was that of the late Cardinal Bernardin.

It is a false love that would readily give the sacrament to those who are not disposed. As the Scriptures relate and St. Augustine made clear, they receive their own judgment or condemnation. Every priest as Confessor is a judge of souls. He can withhold or give absolution. He can ask people not to receive, when they are not in good standing with the Church. Canonically, the Church permits all this. You cannot strip the bishops and their priests of this authority given by Christ in his keys. It is an essential element of Catholicism.

The issue is increasingly one of jurisdiction. What do I mean? For instance, can the archbishop of Baltimore order that a politician from the Wilmington diocese, also part of Maryland, not receive Holy Communion when he enters his archdiocese?

Further, one can be guilty of the sin of abortion without ever having an abortion herself. One can also be guilty through proximate and/or remote collaboration. The person who pays for an abortion is guilty of murder. The person who drives a girl to the abortion clinic is guilty of murder. (We even had a stupid priest do this a few years ago, thinking he was helping the poor girl.) The priest was excommunicated and had his faculties stripped. He could not say Mass or hear Confessions. Indeed, collaboration with abortion can sometimes bring most of the weight of the sin upon the secondary party. An instance of this is a parent who “forces” the daughter to have an abortion. A minor may have little or no culpability in such cases. The mother and father sin grievously and are automatically excommunicated. Nurses, doctors, and other support personnel in abortions are also morally culpable. Politicians who support abortion and infanticide are remote agents but agents all the same in the holocaust against children. While the degree of remoteness with its consequences is argued, it must be said that those who vote for the enablers and supporters of abortion and infanticide also have blood on their hands.

MARY: Father Joe, I am very much aware of what constitutes mortal sin and that one can be indirectly involved without actually committing mortal sin. I am pro-life all the way. I am abhorred by abortion as well as I am of the murder of my fellow neighbor. What is frightening to me is the fact that we take abortion and (very rightfully) discuss the evils and the “blood on our hands,” but to our convenience, we disregard any other murder that perhaps the conservative ticket is not against.

FATHER JOE: I am not speaking as a FOX News “conservative” commentator but as a Catholic priest. I would not negate the need to help the poor and to struggle for social justice in many areas. However, as the late Mother Teresa told us, the issue of abortion and the unborn is most fundamental and at the heart of the Gospel of Life. The Church gives a special gravity to the rights of the unborn, not only because of natural law, but because of Christianity’s stress upon the INCARNATION. There are many issues, but they are not regarded as equal. They are interconnected and the right to life of the unborn is foundational to many other rights. Destroy a human being in the womb, and at least for that person, there are no more issues. If the most vulnerable among us are not safe, no one is safe. Pope Benedict XVI has also spoken about this. My pro-life Catholicism and beliefs as an American citizen are not subject to review, approbation or rebuttal by the state or any political party. While the matter of something like capital punishment does not have the same moral weight in conscience as abortion and infanticide, certainly I lament that Catholics are sometimes not on the same page with the Pope and bishops. However, while there are legitimate arguments about capital punishment and just war, there are no reservations about the evil of abortion. It is never right to directly intend and to actualize the destruction of “innocent” life in the womb.

MARY: If those that voted for the democratic ticket have blood on their hands, then those that voted for the conservative party should look at the blood on their hands. Murder is murder is murder. Abortion is used as a gold ticket in politics, and I believe Roe vs. Wade still exists? None of us are exempt from our votes.

FATHER JOE: We all have blood on our hands. That is the doctrine which has come down to us from the Council of Trent. All men and women in every place and throughout all human history are responsible for the passion and death of Christ on the Cross. All sin makes us party to deicide. The particular sin of murder, in whatever form, is intimately tied up with Calvary. Abortion and infanticide have a singular place because their innocence resonates with Christ who is the “innocent” Victim, the unblemished Lamb, who suffers a redemptive death against the sins of the world.

MARY: Father Joe, I am saying this with all respect for you and your vocation, but I am noticing that we are all too quick to use our political beliefs and wrap it in morality. This is very frightening to me. I believe it is wrong to speak of one party being “evil,” and the other party as “the right way to vote.”

FATHER JOE:

There is right and wrong in all parties. But, parties can become corrupted. The Nazis were a political party which won elections and then sought to retain power by force. Pope Pius XI condemned it. Along with the Communist party, members of these associations were told that they could not belong both to such parties and to the Church. WIKIPEDIA states: “He vehemently protested against both Communism and National Socialism as demeaning to human dignity and a violation of basic human rights, but found no echo or support in the democracies of the West, which he labeled a Conspiracy of Silence.” The parties might change, but the silence still threatens us. Passivity to evil is to cooperate with evil.

Worse yet, what happens when so-called Catholics actually become advocates and enablers for the enemies of life? Remember evil men are rarely or never totally evil. They care for pets. They might love their children. They might have an affinity toward the needs of women. There can be a real regard for the poor. Hit-men and abortionists can still come home to their families and even go to church. But, if one should fall into mortal sin, without repentance, conversion, and amendment of life… no good work or act of charity would have any merit whatsoever. As I said before, I do not pretend to read souls or to know how God will judge particular people. I condemn no one. But, there is a Tribunal before which we will all stand. No one will escape the judgment of God. Yes, there is forgiveness in Christ, but not so abundant that it would destroy or make a farce out of divine justice.

Returning to the matter of parties, would we not condemn today much about which the Nazis and Communists advocated and sought to execute? History will judge us as well. What can we say about any party which makes the murder of children part of its platform and the litmus test for appointments? We can scapegoat neither Jews nor children. Rome used to have a vigorous Christian party which was closely associated with the Church. There is nothing wrong with that and I would applaud a recovery of lay Catholic Action groups in our own nation. I am not advocating an end to the separation of Church and state. However, there should not be civil enmity to genuine faith and the moral values which best promote human dignity, the sanctity of life, and human liberty. Good Catholics in political life should promote what they truly believe and not compromise on fundamental truths just to get re-elected.

MARY: I respect your opinions Father Joe, and I enjoy this blog, but we all need to look at ourselves and the responsibility we have for any party we voted for. Neither is exempt.

FATHER JOE: Yes, I agree.

SCOOTER: Yeah I agree with Father Joe. Ted Kennedy supported abortion and all that [deleted] and that’s not good at all. To the person under “Cowardly” that said “You are a terrible terrible person, how dare you speak about Senator Kennedy like that.” That’s so dumb. I’m guessing you worship Teddy Kennedy.

CABBAGEJUICE: Re: Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick: Capital Punishment for the rich and powerful– “If you have Capital, you don’t get Punishment.” (That is, the in world governed by Satan, NOT the Kingdom of God…)

RD: I’ve read in the New York Times article that Senator Kennedy went to this church where the funeral is being held on his own a few times, it doesn’t say at Mass, it says alone and with his wife last year when his daughter was in hospital, to reflect and pray. Ted Kennedy is quoted: “Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power.” He also said: “The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk.” He also stated: “The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state. ” I see irreconcilability between the first statement and the other two. It is my belief that Mr. Kennedy will now learn what the word “transgression” really means.

KEN: Blessings and prayers for the courage to speak the truth, Father Joe. Christ lost followers, even some of His first disciples when he spoke the truth, without modifying it when he gave us his own Body and Blood. When asked, what must I do to be saved, did He say, “oh, try to do some good, be popular and it will be ok”? His command was pretty harsh to the guy who didn’t want to give up his earthly possessions. Until he repented, I doubt St. Augustine was a bad fellow by today’s standards– he just wanted to hang onto his sins of the flesh.

JOHN:

RD, I would hope and pray that Ted Kennedy made a good confession before his death, and far be it from me to speculate on what was in his heart, BUT…BUT…

If I understand the Sacrament correctly, courtesy of the habit wearing Holy Cross Sisters who taught at the parochial school I went to, God’s forgiveness is not a one way street. Kennedy had plenty of opportunity to publicly correct his legacy of abortion advocacy during his protracted illness. He didn’t (unless he was denied so by the political powers that be). His Holiness Benedict XVI comments on this in his book Jesus of Nazareth. Part of the deal is making amends to those who were hurt by one’s sins. In Kennedy’s case that would include the Democratic Party, several generations of Americans, the Holy Church, the medical profession and the Holy Innocents…the list goes on and on.

JOE: Father Joe, like sickly moths drawn to a robust fire do these atheists swarm to your blog. Not many other Catholic blogs and websites I frequent have such a high concentration, so I believe you must be doing something right. Keep up the good fight, and me and mine shall pray for your continued success. God bless.

HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL:

Human Life International’s Statement on the Passing of Senator Edward Kennedy

August 27, 2009

We must, as a matter of precept, pray for the salvation of heretical Catholics like Senator Edward Kennedy, but we do not have to praise him let alone extol him with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event. There was very little about Ted Kennedy’s life that deserves admiration from a spiritual or moral point of view. He was probably the worst example of a Catholic statesman that one can think of. When all is said and done, he has distorted the concept of what it means to be a Catholic in public life more than anyone else in leadership today.

Obviously we don’t know the state of Senator Edward Kennedy’s soul upon death. We don’t pretend to. We are told by the family that he had the opportunity to confess his sins before a priest, and his priest has said publicly he was “at peace” when he died. For that we are grateful. But it is one thing to confess one’s sins and for these matters to be kept, rightfully, private. It is another thing entirely for one who so consistently and publicly advocated for the destruction of unborn human beings to depart the stage without a public repudiation of these views, a public confession, as it were.

It is up to God to judge Senator Kennedy’s soul. We, as rational persons, must judge his actions, and his actions were not at all in line with one who values and carefully applies Church teaching on weighty matters. Ted Kennedy’s positions on a variety of issues have been a grave scandal for decades, and to honor this “catholic” champion of the culture of death with a Catholic funeral is unjust to those who have actually paid the price of fidelity. We now find out that President Obama will eulogize the Senator at his funeral, an indignity which, following on the heels of the Notre Dame fiasco, leaves faithful Catholics feeling sullied, desecrated and dehumanized by men who seem to look for opportunities to slap the Church in the face and do so with impunity simply because they have positions of power.

It is not enough for Kennedy to have been a “great guy behind the scenes” as we have seen him referred to even by his political opponents. It is also not praiseworthy to put a Catholic rhetorical veneer on his leftist politics that did nothing to advance true justice as the Church sees it or to advance the peace of Christ in this world. Every indication of Senator Kennedy’s career, every public appearance, every sound bite showed an acerbic, divisive and partisan political hack for whom party politics were much more infallible than Church doctrines. Whatever one’s political affiliation, if one is only “Catholic” to the extent that his faith rhymes with his party line, then his Catholicism is a fraud.

As the Scriptures remind us, there is a time for everything under the sun. This, now, is the time for honesty about our Faith and about those who are called to express it in the public forum. If we do not remind ourselves of the necessity of public confession for public sins such as Senator Kennedy was guilty of, then we are negligent in our embrace of the Faith and we are part of the problem. As Pope Benedict has reminded us recently, charity without truth can easily become mere sentimentality, and we must not fall into that error. A Catholic show of charity for the family must not eclipse the truth that is required of all with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Senator Kennedy needs to be sent to the afterlife with a private, family-only funeral and the prayers of the Church for the salvation of his immortal soul. He will not be missed by the unborn who he betrayed time and time again, nor by the rest of us who are laboring to undo the scandalous example of Catholicism that he gave to three generations of Americans.

ENZO: Reverend Father, THANK YOU for speaking the truth on our auto-excommunicated Senator. I appreciate that you have been very Roman about your critique — not impugning his personal life, but being clear about his public record. Nothing could be more FAIR, JUST, and Righteous! If only his Bishop had the testicular fortitude to say the same things! Instead, the Diocesan Paper out in Boston, essentially praises him, and tries to minimize the fact that Kennedy actively worked for the destruction of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, directly, and mostly, indirectly. Intellectually, I join you in your prayers for the rest of his soul. Physically, it’s very hard for me (and many others, I think) to distinguish where our personal concern for him as a brother in Christ ends, and where the hurt for his apostasy, and bitterness for all the evil he wrought, begins… Perhaps you can pray for us too. Christus Vincit!

RD: Personal eulogies at Mass? Father Joe, I’ve never seen that before. Comments? The video feed wouldn’t show the Holy Communion line. Not surprised, and I do recognize that as private, although I must say I am disappointed.

FATHER JOE: Eulogies often come at the end of a funeral Mass before the prayers of final commendation. My main concern was that the prayer of the faithful or general intercessions not be politicized.

DAVID: I am sure that by now, Ted Kennedy has seen all the aborted children that he helped to an early grave. How sad. Mr. Kennedy, you have moved on to your reward. I do not want any part of your reward. You are surely [deleted], and if not it would only be for the grace of God. Wake up!

GHOST OF ED KENNEDY:

Edward Kennedy’s Final Letter to Pope

At Arlington Cemetery, Cardinal McCarrick read portions of Kennedy’s letter to the Pope:

“I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines.”

“I was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago and although I continue treatment, the disease is taking its toll on me. I am 77 years old and preparing for the next passage of life.”

“The gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provides solace to me in the darkest hours.”

“I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith I have tried to right my path.”

He stressed his belief “in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field,” and said that he would “continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.”

“I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith.”

“I continue to pray for God’s blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me.”

The Pope prayed that the senator would be “sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful Father.”

JOHN: The letter Cardinal McCarrick refers to appears to be only more smoke and mirrors from someone (perhaps with a red hat?) wishing to carry on the Kennedy legacy of confusion among Catholics: http://www.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blog_ID=2

FATHER JOE: Cardinal McCarrick was my Ordinary and I pray for him daily. He was often very kind and gracious to me, despite possible differences of opinion. I am still intensely bothered in conscience as to whether I always gave him the proper respect and obedience. He walked a very precarious tight-rope, as does any archbishop of the nation’s capitol. Despite the conflict about pro-abortion politicians and holy communion, he spoke about the right to life frequently and did much in the cause for life: Pregnancy Centers, Gabriel Project, Project Rachel, the Right to Life Office of the Archdiocese, Pro-Life Month, Respect Life in the African-American Community Month, the Right to Life March and the Youth Rally, etc. He felt that if we reacted too strongly we would drive certain politicians further away from the Church and forfeit their support in other crucial areas. He hoped that we might win them back gradually through dialogue and compassion for their struggles in conscience. I have no doubt that he is solidly pro-life in his convictions. But he is a gentle man; he would heal where my impulse is to clobber. We would probably all do better to borrow pages from his book. By contrast, I am much more brash in my arguments and unsympathetic toward those who dissent. I believe that the pro-abortion position is not only a moral evil but a heresy against the Incarnation itself. I would have asked them to attend Mass but not to receive communion until a public recantation and private confession. But, I am only a lowly priest. That is undoubtedly for the best. Maybe he asked them something similar, but they did not listen to him and he opted to keep the business to himself? In any case, priests should love their bishops and I will not speak ill of him. He is a good man, far better than I am, and I still count him my spiritual father.

RD: What a perfect response/prayer by the Holy Father. The Pope prayed that the senator would be “sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful Father.”

FLAGMAN:

Yes, you are right about that much; you are an angry man who shows no compassion and gentleness to others.

Senator Kennedy did more for the working man and woman, as well as for the poor and minorities, than many presidents. He made a positive difference in our lives that neither you nor other hate-mongers in the church could ever match.

He cared about women who died in back-alley abortions and swore that this would never happen again.

He cared about gays and lesbians who were treated as criminals for just loving each other.

He cared about minorities when so many whites still regarded them as second-class citizens and turned a blind eye toward segregation and prejudice.

He cared about the poor, something a millionaire did not have to do, but which his sense of justice demanded of him.

He cared about the immigrants and their needs for education and just treatment, remembering the roots of his own Irish forebears who suffered bigotry and hardship but accomplished much.

Shame on you! You malign the dead and a good man, a hero for the ages!

You are nothing by comparison; maybe that is the point? Your own ego seeks to make yourself more by tearing down a real man of faith and compassion.

Those who praise you are no better. The whole lot of you is hard-headed and insensitive to the REAL needs of people.

BOB: Flagman, Fr. Joe hasn’t an ounce of “hate” in him, except for sin; but that’s for the behavior, not the sinner. It is tragic that women died from “back-alley” abortions, but you don’t condone something that’s morally wrong – like the murder of an innocent unborn – because one of the victims died. That’s as ridiculous and outrageous and wrong as a court awarding a burglar damages for injuries he sustained while robbing someone’s home. Except for some archaic and not enforced laws still on the books in some states, gays and lesbians haven’t been treated as “criminals” for a long time, and Fr. Joe has always viewed those with a homosexual orientation with nothing but compassion; however, a psychological or physiological disorder of epidemic proportions is nonetheless a disorder. Yes, Ted Kennedy did a lot of good. He also disqualified himself as a Catholic by his voting record on Life issues. The right to LIFE is the most basic and the foundation of all other human rights, and if that is denied, the rest of the entire edifice is most assuredly a “house built on sand.”

JOHN: My sincere apology to you, Father Joe, for bringing up Mr. Arroyo’s post about His Holiness’ letter. I am sure the Cardinal is a kind man as are most of the priests I have had the pleasure to know personally.

FATHER JOE: No offense taken, John.

RD: Flagman, if a woman is going to have a back-alley abortion, I say she only injures herself, deservedly. This country was fine with abortions illegal for 197 years. As far as Ted Kennedy helping the working people, he never knew an honest day’s work in his entire life. He never had to worry about the demands this country has placed on working families and individuals in a personal way. Why do so many working people oppose his actions? Do not confuse being generous with taxpayer dollars as generosity. The Catholic Church does more for the poor and persecuted in this world than all the Democrats ever will. And, they do it through donations to Catholic charities, not forcibly stealing from hard-working Americans.

DAN: Flagman, your post sounded angry and without compassion…. I think that you might miss the point which is that Senator Kennedy was a Catholic who did NOT use his influence to promote Catholic values. Did he have his reasons? I am sure that he did, including wanting to remain in a powerful and influential position. This is a CATHOLIC blog – so why the surprise that it tends to judge things through a Catholic frame of reference?

PAT: I believe The Lord Jesus and the Holy Father are not in need of “judges,” juries, or pointing fingers. Speaking the truth must be with charity, not with a club, and certainly not focusing on an individual, by name, and proceeding to enumerate all his sins. Gee………

FATHER JOE: Christ established a Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. Every priest is a judge and confessor of souls. We keep to ourselves that which comes through the sacrament of reconciliation. We are prudent about our parishioners and the counsel we give. However, neither the Church nor her priests should be afraid to respond to evil and dissent in the public forum. I make no judgment upon anyone’s soul. I would not even presume that Stalin or Hitler is in Hell, despite the fact that their “politics” resulted in the murder of millions. For all we know there was mental illness and/or diabolic possession. Many regard it highly likely that they share the lot of the damned, but I would never claim to know for sure. I have not spoken about anyone’s personal life. Kennedy supported same-sex unions, abortion, and partial birth infanticide. He made no secret about it and we should not be dismissive about his record now that he is dead. Indeed, many are celebrating his record and want abortion coverage in the new health care initiatives as a tribute to him. Abortion and infanticide are known by another word, MURDER. You might claim to be pro-life, but you would silence our efforts against the enablers and promoters of such perversity. That is wrong.

PAT: I wonder what Father would have said if he had encountered Paul on the road to Damascus? Read him the “riot act”?

FATHER JOE:

Speaking to the Pharisee Saul (Paul) who approved of the stoning of Stephen, I would have quoted Christ:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter.”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.”

“Woe to you, blind guides!”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity.”

“Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence.”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.”

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?”

“Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.”

Of course, our Lord struck him blind, charged him with his participation in murder, and sent him to a member of the Church for healing and the full truth.

PAT: We are called to be witnesses of the love and mercy of Jesus Christ, to the saints AND the sinners, speaking out the truth, not with sarcasm and “vinegar”, but as Christ would have us do. The sinner has a choice, and the judgment is none of our business.

FATHER JOE: Our Lord was not wimpish and neither should his Church and ministers be so against evil, both from outside and within the Church. The Church preaches the Gospel both in and out of season. The Church imposes sanctions against those who commit evil. Abortion brings excommunication. Heresy can bring censure and interdiction. The Code of Canon Law itself makes provisions against groups and individuals that probably you would not allow. I have never said that the late Senator should be denied a funeral Mass and prayers. I did object to that Mass being televised. Objecting to scandal, false witness and collaboration with abortion is very much the business of a priest, indeed, of any true Christian.

EWTN: EWTN News Director Raymond Arroyo:

The prayer intercessions at the funeral mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy Church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one.

ALL: American Life League President Judie Brown:

The entire travesty, from the television cameras to spectacle itself, goes beyond anything I have witnessed in my more than 65 years of life. In fact, while we all thought the appearance of President Barack Obama at the University of Notre Dame was a scandal, the very idea that he offered a eulogy in a basilica, while the real presence of Christ was in the tabernacle, is perhaps the most dastardly thing I have ever seen.

CARDINAL O’MALLEY: Cardinal Sean O’Malley:

Senator Kennedy was often a champion for the poor, the less fortunate and those seeking a better life. Across Massachusetts and the nation, his legacy will be carried on through the lives of those he served.

CATHOLICS UNITED: Senator Kennedy’s legendary advocacy for justice and the common good – on issues such as health care, immigration, community service, and poverty – spanned more than four decades and touched millions.

CATHOLICS BETRAYED: Catholics United is a pro-abortion front-group for Obama. They support current healthcare efforts which include artificial contraception and abortion. They have publicly attacked Donohue from the Catholic League and Brown from the American Life League. They talk about a preposterous “abortion neutral” stance which is really just more passivity to the murder of millions. They distribute voter guides which equate matters as having the same gravity like clean water with infanticide. Their purpose is clear, to minimize the crucial moral evils against human life and marriage under a large list of issues that better fit their liberal agenda. Back in October, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput accused Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United as doing a “disservice” to the Catholic Church. If you read A NATION FOR ALL by the founders of Catholic United, you will see just how progressive and non-Catholic both Chris Korzen and Alexia Kelley actually are. Since they delivered the Catholic vote, Alexia Kelly was rewarded by Obama by being made the Director of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships for the HHS. Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, claims pro-abortion multibillionaire George Soros funds Catholic United (a dissenting so-called Catholic organization) in order to confuse Catholics about abortion and funnel votes for pro-abortion Democrats and Obama. Donohue writes: “Catholics in Alliance [for the Common Good] willfully misrepresents Church teachings on abortion, and George Soros funds them through the Open Society Institute. Is it illegal? No. Is it immoral? Yes!”

ANNIE: Once God has His hand on a man, we should take ours off. Shout out about the issues, but let the dead bury the dead.

FATHER JOE:

Both the living and the dead are always in God’s hands.

Where does the man end and the issues begin?

We might leave this world for eternity, but the effects (good and bad) continue to be felt.

Dissenters in faith and morals can cause immeasurable harm both in life and death. Those who pay tribute to Kennedy are also seeking to use him and his legacy to inspire and to promote abortion and perversity. Only God knows his heart and mind. Only God is his judge. I am sure that he, along with all the dead, knows the truth. The unborn are human persons. Unfortunately, what he knows now is not something that his earthly disciples believe or promote. Given the presumption that he was a good man, I suspect this causes him great remorse. I suppose such is what many will experience in purgatory.

JOHN: Cardinal O’Malley, Kennedy’s legacy will be carried on through the lives of those he served as you’ve said, but what sort of legacy has he left us? A controlling political party which has made abortion a cornerstone in its platform and made it a “right?” A so-called “health care reform” so ambiguous that it terrifies the elderly and working classes alike? His campaigning for President Obama, whose dealings with the Catholic Church have been one continuous string of insults (anti-Catholic political appointments, as well as the mockery at Notre Dame) His leadership by example which inspired a generation of Americans that power equals immunity from criminal prosecution. Some people have been helped by Kennedy’s legislation but I feel his agenda was never to help, only to build a power base which in gratitude tolerates hostility to the Church. Respectfully, I beg to disagree.

ANNIE: Father, cConsider that you are preaching to the choir. You have a forum for teaching us how to protect the unborn with positive actions. What do bringing dead flowers to Kennedy’s grave accomplish? I’m genuinely upset by this kind of rhetoric.

FATHER JOE: Not everyone who comes here is the choir, and some of the choir members may even be singing off key if not the wrong tune. I take it that you also disagree with Human Life International and the American Life League? I am not alone in my reservations. This was a teaching moment and the Church allowed a contradictory message to be taught. In any case, I said we should pray for the poor man. I suspect some are upset because I refuse to praise him.

NICK: Cardinal O’Malley, iIs that ALL you have to say? My response to your comment will be just as brief: Would you like some bread to go along with that baloney? All due respect – Your Eminence.

BLABBER MOUTH:

Except for affection for certain prayers and piety, was Kennedy really a Catholic? Kennedy had no reservations about abortion and contraception. The funeral Mass should have used his votes for the litany of petitions:

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted NO on banning human cloning
HAVE MERCY ON US!

Voted to ensure access to and funding for contraception
HAVE MERCY ON US!

JOHN: Blabber Mouth, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Some very important clergy (the ones at the funeral, for starters) don’t (or refuse) to see Kennedy’s hand in the causality of genocidal sin which cries to heaven for justice. Why this is, I can only guess, but that I fear would be a waste of time and only open me to attacks of “passing judgment.” I will say that whatever or whomever has their “hooks” in these men, be they spiritual or corporeal, has them sunk in deep. We all have our failings. The more famous get to have their failings made more public. Sadly, these priests were caught doing the unthinkable on national television, furthering the scandals from which the Church in the US suffers. They need our prayers.

MINDY: Honestly, the whole Ted Kennedy Funeral Parade with the full participation of members of the clergy, some of whom at very high levels, made me question a lot of things. We don’t know if the senator made a confession and was remorseful for his wrong doings during his personal life and very public career. The choices he made in the public arena did great harm to women, and while I can give praise for his aide in the civil rights movement- I can’t forget he discarded the weakest among us. I guess I do not understand what a proper confession and atonement should be. Words of praise from monsignors, cardinals, archbishops and a letter from the Holy Father made no sense to me. If he were to be truly sorry for his sins against the right to life, why would not a man in his position be asked to say something to that fact? His words WERE read from the grave, but, to the best of my recollection, they said nothing about the sanctity of the life of an unborn child. I didn’t understand the Clergy’s support of him and the high praise for his family, so many whom support abortion.

PAT: There is no argument here, amongst Catholic Christians regarding abortion and homosexuality etc and the teachings of the Church.

FATHER JOE: I disagree; I think there is an argument. Abortion is the murder of human beings. You would have me praise those who support such actions. Because I refuse to do this, you condemn me.

PAT: What there is here is disagreement on Father’s tone toward those who sin and violate the teachings of Christ and the Church.

FATHER JOE: My tone toward sin is the same as that announced by John the Baptist, Christ and later his apostles: REPENT AND BELIEVE! Forgiveness is possible, but we also need contrition and a firm purpose of amendment.

PAT: …except, Father, and friends…that happens to be each and every one of us, not one of us is deserving of the love and mercy of God. “All have sinned….” And let’s not get into the mortal and venial sermon…as if you can size up your transgressions as small, medium and large.

FATHER JOE: The distinctions between mortal and venial sin are straight out of the Catholic catechism. They are not matters easily dismissed. Abortion and homosexual acts constitute grave matter. If a person knows such acts are wrong and gives full consent, or enables and/or leads others into such sins, he or she sins mortally. Mortal sin destroys the life of the soul.

PAT: …although Father I am sure you will quote something for me on that… that is not the point… and the reply you wrote about what you would say to Saul on that road, although you quoted Jesus’ words to the Pharisees, was Not what words Saul heard.

FATHER JOE: I am not Jesus; you asked what I would say? Saul was a Pharisee. He admits later on that he was guilty of innocent blood. He repents and is changed. But without repentance, can there be any real transformation?

PAT: Saul heard, “Why do you persecute me?”

FATHER JOE: And I suspect that many pro-abortion politicians will hear these words from Jesus. But remember, Saul was still alive and could change. Had he heard these words after death, they would have constituted a definitive judgment. Why did you persecute me in the womb? Why did you seek out my life again and again? Why was it you could love others, but not me as the embryo, the fetus, and the infant ready to be born?

PAT: You are not a reader of hearts, or souls, but the Lord is, and knows our deepest motivations.

FATHER JOE: I am a confessor of souls with the same power that Christ had to forgive or to retain sins. Jesus gave this power to his priests. Even the late senator purportedly received the Last Rites from a priest. About this and his funeral Mass I fully concur. He had a right to the sacraments at the end of his life. He was entitled to a funeral Mass, although the public display sent mixed messages. I make no claim of knowledge about his place in the hereafter. Indeed, I suggest we pray for him. But that is not enough for you and some others. Your bitterness and hatred toward me is very evident. But you also attack the Catholic priesthood.

PAT: I also disagree that you say a priest is a “judge” and confessor. A priest is no judge; withholding absolution, does not a Judge make.

FATHER JOE:

You would reject here another doctrine of the Church. The priest as confessor is judge, spiritual physician, father and teacher. He judges whether one might be given absolution and restored to the sacraments and good standing of the Church. He has the power to lift the censure of excommunication from those who have involved themselves with abortion. He makes a determination as to a person’s disposition. If it is clearly a bad confession, he urges the person to make further reflection and to return when he or she is serious about seeking God’s mercy. He gives penance and can also require reparation and restitution.

I have deleted the last part of Pat’s comment because such a “personal” attack against a priest by a believer is itself a sin. I would not parade your disgrace further upon this matter.

I will add you to my prayers and hope that you will one day wake up to the full import of the Gospel of Life and the important mission of priests to preach the truth both in and out of season… even to our own.

PAUL: Father Joe: I thought your comments on Senator Kennedy were entirely appropriate. There is a fine line between being righteous and self-righteous. We are not judge and jury. Just like the older brother in the “Prodigal” story, we must not give in to our feeling about a particular person. God will judge the Senator by his own standards not Man’s.

Filed under: Catholic, Celebrities, Morality, Politics, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | 1 Comment »

Never Mind Your Wishes, We Know Better

Posted on January 15, 2012 by Father Joe

In England, doctors would like to make the choice between life and death. Here is a report from back in 2006. It is still relevant today:

A High Court judge on Wednesday refused a request from doctors to turn off a ventilator keeping alive an 18-month-old boy with incurable spinal muscular atrophy. The boy’s parents had opposed their request, arguing that although he was severely physically disabled, the boy could still enjoy spending time with his family . . . The case was believed to be the first in which doctors had asked to allow a patient who is not in a persistent vegetative state to die.

Under England’s NHS, I imagine the doctors were trying to protect their financial interests. It’s certainly not cost effective to pay for the care of the severely disabled. (Never mind that the funding comes from the sky-high taxes of their very own patients!)

In this case, the request was denied, but the fact that the doctors felt themselves within their medical right to make such a request has far-reaching and grotesque implications. How can anyone in England feel safe in the hands of these arrogant holier-than-thous?

Not much of a leap from abortion to infanticide, the slippery slope has already been realized in our own country.

Remember the newborn child with an obstruction in the throat that prevented feeding? Because the child also suffered from Down’s Syndrome and most likely retarded, an easy surgery to correct the feeding problem was dismissed. The baby starved to death.

There have been several similar cases since, and of course, we always have Partial Birth Abortion which is really a form of Infanticide.

The ethicist Singer suggests that infanticide should be allowed at least until about three years of age– arguing that they are not viable without assistance and not “full” persons.

The brave new world resembles the old world more and more every day. The ancient Romans allowed babies to die from exposure and abandonment. If any of you ever saw the old movie HAWAII dealing with early colonization and missionary work, you may remember the scene where the girl baby is thrown off a cliff. I wonder if it would still shock audiences today?

Filed under: Contraception, Family, Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sin | 4 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »