Morality | Blogger Priest

More Voices from the Other Side: Divorce & Remarriage

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Father Joe

This is a follow up post to a previous one focusing on “the other side” of divorce and upon those spouses who wanted to preserve their unions. The issue of Church censure, annulments and remarriage weigh heavily in the discussion. Here are a number of voices in dialogue about this important matter. The first respondent begins by remarking upon Karl’s charges against the last two popes for not doing enough.

FATHER LONE RANGER:

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are part of the problem? I do not think so. They have sought to address the problem of invalid annulments, but many canonists will not listen to them. The Holy Father has wanted to prevent scandal and so there is a great deal of communication that is never made privy to the general public. The issue is and was extensive dissent, not simply among ragtag theologians, but wholesale among bishops and chancery clergy.

Why does the problem remain? Liberal theologians are also often canonists and the same passivity that the Church exhibits towards politicians and morals is also revealed when facing distraught divorced people who want to erase a mistake and marry again. For all practical purposes, the Church is involved with a silent schism and the Pope knows that if he pushes too hard, the bulk of the American Church will defect, bishops and all. It will be England and Henry VIII revisited with a vengeance.

[At this point he offers a prayer for Karl.]

Dear God, we ask you to bring healing to Karl and justice to the cause that he feels so deeply. Easy divorce is a violation that attacks at the heart of the marriage bond. Vows are made and should be kept. Marriages are not ended by judicial decree or even by Church courts, but by the death of a spouse. Then and only then is a true marriage ended, and yet, even here, there is no end to the love that a husband and wife share. Bless Karl in his life, and watch over and protect his five children. The fruit of married love is real and everlasting (Holly, Mary, Margaret, Monica and Karl Michael). May the good Lord envelop Karl in his loving embrace and give him peace. Amen.

Sign the petition against No-Fault Divorce:
http://www.catholicmarriagepetition.org/index.htm

MARY:

Many of us have been abandoned by our spouses. Life is tough, Karl. But we are not living for joy & happiness on this earth. We are trying to get to HEAVEN …. There is justice after this life if not during. This is why we pray & pray for conversion in our unfaithful spouses so that their hearts will be softened and they return to Christ before their death and be able to obtain heaven. And we pray and pray for ourselves …for the grace to be faithful to God’s Law (especially that of living a chaste life, which is so very lonely) and the grace to imitate Christ in His meek carrying of His cross. And we pray for our children that their hearts not be hardened by the pain of loss they suffer or by being witnesses to bad example (most likely) from both parents.

No, Karl, life is not fair. I also lost a son in a car accident. Does this give me the right to rage against God at the injustice? To rage against others who have not lost children simple because they do not share this particular cross? …To ignore my surviving children, and my other duties because of my pain? My answer to these questions has been NO! You might be surprised how others answer these questions…peek in on a support group for bereaved parents, you may be shocked. As sad as these situations may be or should I say as sad as the sufferings we all face in life may be, we must be willing to do what we can to correct injustice on this earth without going against God’s Law (because the end never justifies the means). Then, we must accept our fate as God’s Will for us and continue to serve Him in love.

WI CATHOLIC:

Although I do not fight in the same way or anger as Karl does, I have to agree with him on nearly everything he has said about the lack of help/assistance for those of us who believe/KNOW that we ARE in a Valid Marriage no matter what a civil divorce court has said, or the world has said… OR Tribunals have said.

I have been told to “Trust the Holy Spirit” and petition the Tribunals, with the additional statements that the alcoholism is a clear indication of NULLITY, and would be adequate grounds to a Null Decision.

Point One: I do not believe alcoholism (sickness and heath, better or worse, good times and bad) are grounds for determining that our marriage was NULL on the day we appeared before God and Man and pledged our vows “all the days of my life.”

Point Two: I am not able to sign the basic forms that are needed to petition due to the fact that I must state that I believe my Marriage to have been Null from the beginning. I do NOT believe that.

Point Three: In a Church which teaches/has always taught that ALL marriages are VALID until proven beyond doubt that they were not, before a Tribunal, I cannot buy into the fact that the Tribunals are being led by the Holy Spirit when the first contact with Respondents is to call my spouse my “FORMER SPOUSE.” Sorry, but the Civil Law means nothing, and my spouse is still my spouse regardless of that decree. CIVILLY he may not be, but in my Church, he is! To me, and to many other faithful spouses who live their vows regardless of what MAN says, in obedience to what GOD says (Jesus Himself four times in the Gospel, as well as in Church teachings)–this is a slap in the face, and a clear indication where “the spirit” lies… and discernment can lead one to believe that it may well be a “false spirit of compassion” that rules the day in our US Tribunals that seems to favor those who destroy the marriage, often by adultery/divorce/civil marriage to the “lover”/and finally, a petition to annul the first marriage in favor of the second, which was based on adultery to begin with.

Point Four: Sites with an appealing name such as “Save Our Sacrament” are not pointed out to be dissident. “Internal Forum” is blatantly featured, in spite of the fact that it is NOT to be used for Marriage/Divorce, and no one in the hierarchy calls them on it publicly. No one preaches the Truth on Internal Forum in the local parishes where it is “taught” by priests, etc. It is allowed to stay online for years (as in St Anthony Messengers article by Fr John Catoir on the topic). THIS is SCANDAL.

http://www.saveoursacrament.org/

S.O.S. is a member of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (COR).

http://www.cta-usa.org/COR.html#list

Yet, the very cry of most of us who do NOT want NULL verdicts, but the TRUTH of the VALIDITY of our marriages is corrupted by this website. What is promoted there is not saving the Sacrament. It is watering down Truth to fit society’s plunge into the Pit. It is, essentially, what Henry VIII said/taught after Rome refused to grant a NULL verdict about his marriage to Catherine of Arragon.

I do love my Church, and there is no place else I would go. I could not leave Him (The Eucharist) any more than I can quit my vows. To do so would be doing to HIM what my spouse did to ME so long ago— Desertion— forced unilateral divorce— attempting to say that something that EXISTS never really did in the first place.

Yet my Church, which used to defend those of us who remain faithful till death, vehemently, has done this to us by allowing the US Tribunals to grant so many NULL verdicts and to tell us that this is “right” and “true” and “spirit-led.”

If there is a schism here in the US, it will ONLY be VISIBLE evidence of what is already happening! “My people PERISH for lack of KNOWLEDGE!” …of TRUTH. Truth needs to be preached, and to be acted on, or “the spirit of compassion” (which I firmly believe is a False spirit) will continue to overtake Truth. While the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church—many of the members of that Church may end up on the other side of those very Gates.

In our situation, the civil wife KNOWS the Truth, and told our children that they (civil wife and my spouse) cannot go to Communion because according to the Church, they are living in sin—her words in the very beginning of that “marriage.”

Another in our family, an in-law, was told by her priest-friend that as long as SHE knew in her heart that the first marriage wasn’t valid, she could avoid the Tribunal and still receive Communion…and she does on the rare occasion she attends Mass.

No one refutes this from any pulpit in our area (and I would be willing to bet, in few nationally). In fact, I have heard only ONE sermon on Jesus’ words on divorce (I believe they show up once every three years in the Gospel readings of Sunday Mass, though it MAY be twice) in all the years since our separation in the early 80′s! And that was watered down….

Karl has very valid points. His anger is, in many ways, justified.

Too many are willing to compromise to “protect the feelings” of those in the pews who may need to hear Truth in order to save their very souls. It is Truth that sets us free, not compromise, not justifying Sin and condoning it with an official “verdict” that is based on today’s psychiatric diagnoses.
His People Perish for Lack of Knowledge… and Hell is for Eternity.

FATHER JOE:

The bit about “sickness and heath, better or worse, good times and bad” are not in reference to things that would invalidate a marriage in the present. If you become a drunk after you are married, there are no grounds for invalidation. If you develop psychosis after marriage, you are still married. If a man has a fishing accident with a hook while on honeymoon and castrates himself, as long as there has been a consummation, he is truly married. But, if any of these things happen prior to the marriage day, then the couple is out of luck. Annulments are granted because people conceal problems from the priest and sometimes try to do so even from themselves. An annulment means they should NEVER have gotten married in the first place and that the sacrament or natural bond is not really present. There is a legal union (both in the Church and in civil society) and for that reason children remain legitimate even after an annulment.

Alcoholism can vary by degrees; however, a person who is grossly incapable of dealing with his own life can hardly make a marital commitment to another. Like paralysis, certain maladies can make the fulfillment of marital duties impossible or highly improbable. If such is the case before the vows are taken and on the appointed day for a marriage, the bond could indeed be invalidated. Indeed, if priests are aware of a problem like alcoholism, we are forbidden to marry the couple. I ask about addictions and diseases prior to witnessing marriages. If they lie to me that deceit can also invalidate the marriage. People have a natural right to marriage, but some like me freely renounce that right and others are incapable of it because of either faulty intention, dishonesty, impotence, addiction, hatred (rejection) of children, physical incapacitation, sexual corruption, or mental aberration.

A person who is HIV positive cannot be married lawfully in the Church to a non-infected person because non-contraceptive intercourse required for consummation is possibly deadly to the spouse. A paralyzed man cannot engage in the marital act and get married, with the possible exception of those with artificial intervention to restore potency. Couples who are sterilized are routinely required to attempt surgical reversals in order to have a sacramental wedding. People who are mentally deranged and/or who take drugs for mental diseases are not normally able to marry. Medication to control various mental illnesses would deform a fetus. Alcoholism or any other kind of serious drug addiction invalidates the marriage vows and bond. A heroin fiend cannot truly fulfill his vows and is lying to his beloved and the priest. The same goes for gross alcoholism. It is a sickness, but there is a moral element related to it. I knew a man who was an active alcoholic who had his prior bond annulled on the grounds that his addiction made him incapable of marriage. He then wanted to get married again but a “monitum” prohibited any priest or deacon from marrying him until a doctor certified that he had found sobriety. He remained a drunk and so he could not marry again. The last time I saw him, he was begging for money on the streets.

You write: “I am not able to sign the basic forms that are needed to petition due to the fact that I must state that I believe my Marriage to have been Null from the beginning. I do NOT believe that.” Fine and good, you should not sign them if you disagree. Indeed, if such is your conviction, you should never remarry even if the spouse does so, in or out of the Church. Marriage is a one-time sacrament. I cannot say that the Tribunals are always right about these things. The culpability is more upon them than any individuals they mislead. However, the process, while imperfect, is an attempt to protect the indissolubility of marriage while being compassionate to those who might have grounds for nullity.

I am not familiar with the website SAVE OUR SACRAMENT although I am familiar with internal forum between couples (usually elderly) and the pastor. They are required to live as brother and sister and they are not to advertise the nature of their relationship so as to avoid scandal. I worked with just such a couple many years ago who were in their 90′s. They have since passed away.

If your husband has civilly remarried, he is not in good standing with the Church. He is still required to go to Sunday Mass and to make sure that any children receive the sacraments. However, as long as he cohabitates with this other woman, the status is regarded as adultery and no personal sentiment or feeling on his part would allow him to receive communion. Indeed, he cannot receive absolution from a priest, either. He is apparently in a state of mortal sin. His in-laws are grievously wrong to tell him otherwise. They are numbing his conscience and that of his civil-wife to the fact that their eternal salvation is at stake.

I cannot speak about your case because I do not know the particulars. Since there is a civil marriage, I take it that no annulment was granted. If you felt that the first marriage was the valid one, then you are right to oppose the annulment, although they are sometimes granted despite opposition. If your husband and his civil-wife were really good Catholics, they would not want to live in an adulterous relationship. If you really loved someone, would you do something that would deprive them of the Eucharist and maybe even cost them their salvation in Christ? I asked this of a priest who left and attempted marriage. He said he loved the girl. I argued that he did not love her enough and that he was selfish. Better for a priest to suffer in his loneliness than to cost another the gift of sanctifying grace and the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. He did not know what to say. He knew I was right. He said he would get laicized. But at that time he was still married to the Church and what if she should die before laicization was granted? He would have to live with the terrible possibility that he sent to hell the person he most loved in the whole world.

I preach upon this subject of divorce and annulments, as well as upon the crisis of premarital sex and cohabitation. Not all priests are silent. I am sorry about your pain. You can pray for him and continue to witness to your vows. We all want joy, but often what we get is the Cross.

WI CATHOLIC:

I have reconciled myself to living my vows alone till one of us dies. Our civil-forced-divorce was way back in 1985, and I have long been able to praise Him and to forgive my spouse. I pray for him and for the civil wife all the time. (She and I have spoken; she has been praying for my health recently, much to the chagrin of xxxxxxxxx). My primary desire is his salvation and sobriety, as well as mine. Hers is secondary. Reconciliation at this stage is totally up to God Himself.

Yes, it is MY understanding also what counts is prior to marriage, and the wedding day itself, not what is diagnosed 10 plus years after the marriage. But that is not what happened in our area, and it is not what I have been told by at least three priests. I have been me telling THEM this fact.

I can believe that you do teach on the subject, Father Joe, because you are one of the rare ones who speaks of this topic ONLINE, too. But in most places, it is avoided like the plague.

Civil divorce is taken as proof that the marriage was not a marriage most of the time now, or “it would not have ended up in the divorce courts.” But this is not true.

We are still a largely forgotten group of very Faithful Catholics, most often looked upon as pitiable, rigid, angry, bitter… even “pus-filled.” I assure you, most of us are not. When WE plead, “Save our Sacrament,” WE are begging the Church to stand with us regarding the validity of our marriages. We are not looking for a “way out,” but help to work toward reconciliation, healing, and maintaining the validity and permanency that Jesus Himself insisted upon.

As for Internal Forum, I cannot begin to claim the education others have, but I have spent the past 25 years learning as much as possible. One source:
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and now Pope Benedict XVI writes forcefully on the subject of the indissolubility of marriage. He concludes such a statement regarding the International Theological Commission’s Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage:

I would underscore that what is at stake in respect to the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage is nothing less than the Church’s fidelity to the radicalism of the Gospel. “The severity does not derive from a purely disciplinary law or from a type of legalism. It is rather a judgment pronounced by Jesus Himself (Mk 10:6ff). Understood in this way, this severe norm is a prophetic witness to the irreversible fidelity of love that binds Christ to His Church. It shows also that the spouses’ love is incorporated into the very love of Christ (Eph. 5:23-32).”[6]

In short, because marriage is an irrevocable covenant established by God, it is not a mere personal and private act. Marriage consent pertains to the common good and directly effects the Church. Subsequently, a mere personal and private act cannot substitute for a judgement of marriage nullity. In determining such a grave matter, only the Church herself, acting in the name of Christ, has competence to pass judgement.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=54

God bless! (I can still understand Karl’s anger and frustration.)

KARL: Hang in there, WI Catholic, I do love the Catholic Church, just can’t live with her.

WI CATHOLIC: Thank you, Karl. God bless you!

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Catholic, Divorce, Family, Marriage, Morality, Sexuality, Sin, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Our Pro-Life Commitment

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Father Joe

The Cemetery of the Innocents

Here is a picture of me and the Knights of Columbus who set up 721 crosses that represent the children lost to abortion in one hour of one work day. This MEMORIAL OF THE INNOCENTS was set up at Holy Family Church in Mitchellville in 2009 and every year since then. We often have it up until the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. We received a lot of support although there were a few complaints. One lady argued against putting such a thing up at Christmas time. I explained that Advent and Christmas was the perfect time. During Advent we recall the Christ-child in the womb and on Christmas he is born. We are reminded that every child is a reflection of the Christ-child. Another person argued that it was insensitive as she was a pro-choice Catholic. I told her that she was deceived. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Christian; abortion attacks the central mystery of the Incarnation. Abortion is murder and as such it is a repudiation of Christ’s Gospel of Life.

One of my favorite memories is working with the American Life League back in 2005 and the CRUSADERS FOR LIFE. Here is a reposting of the news around that event at my old parish, Holy Spirit Church:

A.L.L. Crusaders Come to Washington 2005

A dozen young people from colleges across the country walked from Augusta, Maine to Washington, DC in “Defense of the Catholic Church” and to spread the message that you cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion. Nevertheless, while many have applauded young people for taking up the “right to life” cause, this group of remarkable crusaders was purportedly banned from speaking in churches by several dioceses like Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Myself, Dr. Grier & a Crusader

The American Life League ran a series of stinging ads challenging the American bishops to enforce canon law and to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege when pro-abortion politicians and others (who have made such “public” stands) take it upon themselves to receive Holy Communion. The young people have shown no spite or anger, only sadness that some of the nation’s shepherds have chosen to remain on the sidelines. One priest remarked that the ads in protest were so severe that the American Life League owed the leaders of the Church an apology. However, others thought that these good men should at least have shown the same respect and hospitality to the young marchers for life as they have in the past to the high profile anti-life politicians. While they were able to find lodging in the city, they attended 9:00 AM Mass at Holy Spirit Church on Friday, July 30 and were invited to say a few words afterwards. I contacted the archdiocese’s Pro-Life Office several weeks earlier about the matter to insure a level of approbation and to insure proper discretion. (Although the ads pained him, to his credit, Cardinal McCarrick did not formally forbid the young people to speak in his churches. Throughout, nothing the young people said violated the archdiocese’s rules against participation in partisan politics– they did not name politicians by name, did not tell people for whom they should vote, and spoke with respect in regard to the Church’s shepherds.) Following the celebration, a reception was held in the Parish House were the young people had a hearty breakfast and got to meet parishioners. Also in attendance was SK Reginald Grier, a parishioner, a fourth degree Knight of Columbus and volunteer member of the archdiocesan Office for Black Catholics. John Stakem, a Knight of Columbus from St. Pius X Council, and past parishioner was present, too. John Stakem and Joseph Markauskas were long-time pro-life volunteers and were involved with the local pregnancy center. Joe and Betty Markauskas had even offered to give the young people housing while in town. We were very pleased that the director for the Forestville Pregnancy Center was present, Chyllene McLaughlin, along with her assistant. We wanted to communicate to these young people that they were not alone. Holy Spirit Parish, the Knights of Columbus, and the Pregnancy Center in the larger pro-life community, was very much behind them.

ALL Crusaders at Holy Spirit Parish

May God bless them for their sacrifices and may their witness bear fruit.

DISCUSSION

FRANK: News releases indicate that the Church after Vatican II had converted the Kennedys and other Catholic politicians into believing that the liberal backing of the culture of death is acceptable.

FATHER JOE: What news releases were these? Cite them; I would like to read further. As far as I recall, John Kennedy was chastised by churchmen for his liberal response about how little his faith would inform his work as president. As for the other Kennedys and the issue of abortion, I fail to see how Vatican II can be blamed for their pro-abortion stances. I have read and studied all the Vatican II documents and post-conciliar documents. Nothing comes to mind that would condone such thinking against the Gospel of Life. Are we throwing mud again? Give me specifics, please.

FRANK: Having attended the seminaries after Vatican II where the divinity of Christ was challenged, as well as the papacy, and all that was to be infallible before the “Catholic reformation” of 1962-1965; what is your take on recent developments and the continued blasphemies to this day condoned by the Church where the USCCB still can’t come to a consensus to deny our Lord to baby-killing Catholic politicians?

FATHER JOE:

Certainly there was a heightened stress upon the humanity of Christ in many theological schools after Vatican II. However, I do not recall ever being taught that Jesus was not a divine Person.

Fr. Patrick Granfield taught my class on the papacy at Catholic University and his lectures defended the Holy Father’s authority with a great deal of explanation.

Those things that were changed were not deemed infallible but rather mutable accidentals. This thinking was even shared by Pope Pius XII prior to Vatican II on matters like the prehistoric generation of human beings and the liturgy.

A revision of the liturgy was in the working stages going back to the 1930′s and 40′s. The reformed liturgy we have now has lasted a few decades and will probably remain for many more, although with the old liturgy alongside and with continuing adaptations by the Holy See. We have had to suffer the experimental phase, but Pope Benedict XVI said that such has come to an end.

As for the passivity of churchmen in reference to Holy Communion and the standing of pro-abortion politicians, such is also not attributable to Vatican II. The Church has gone through periods in the past where it was the lackey for parliaments, kings and queens. The Popes made clear statements from the 1600′s onward that slavery was detestable and should be abandoned. However, Catholics owned slaves in the colonies and later in the United States of America. The Jesuit landowners of Maryland had slaves. Bishops were often mute on the subject, except for admonishing their baptism in the faith. Dissent is not something new but something very old.

PADRE XYZ:

Father Joe, Your welcome to the pro-life young people did not go unnoticed. I know it cost you personally. I think you can be rude and you definitely lack tact, but it did take some nerve to stand virtually alone and make the challenge against silence or business as usual. You honestly shared your heart to the bishops and your brother priests.

You asked…

Would you give communion to Nazis who promoted the murder of Jews?

Would you give communion to White Supremacists who incited the lynching of Blacks?

Why should we prize the life in the womb any less or their murders as somehow less grievous?

Silence befell all the big guns. You lost a lot of friends that day. If you had career hopes in the church, they were suddenly shattered. Hushed and whispered voices were the only response, “How do we shut this priest up?”

You became an embarrassment. I could not do what you did. You angered a lot of people. You took a promise of obedience and you were reprimanded for your slight as an act of betrayal. Some of us witnessed it, although you were left unnamed.

You changed after that, became quiet, even sullen. It was as if something died in you. You gained weight.

I know you were disappointed in me. But to be frank, I was afraid. Who are we to question the shepherds over us? What happens if we tell the majority of Catholic politicians they are no longer welcome at the altar?

Take care of yourself.

FATHER JOE: I was going to erase this comment. I still might. If you are who I think you are, email me. Peace!

(I am not really brave. I speak my mind and I love the Church. When all is said and done, I do as I am told. I am the Church’s man. Some would contend that I am too conservative or right wing. But how can we be too committed to the Gospel of Life? Every day I work to control my temper. As long as I can remember, I have been very passionate about our faith and its values. Am I ambitious? Like most priests, it is nice to know that one is appreciated and that one’s talents are acknowledged. However, by comparison to most priests that I know, my rating would be very low. It is not false humility but the truth when I say that I count myself as the least of my brothers. As for the bishops, it must be a frightful responsibility they carry. Who would want it? They are criticized from every side. It is easy for us to judge, but we do not walk in their shoes. Pray for priests and pray, especially for our bishops. They are Christ’s apostles in the world today.)

DR: I nominated you for a pro-life blog award (FATHER JOE Blog).

JOHN: Fr. Joe, abortion is murder. These babies can’t speak for themselves. Other bishops have stood up and said priests should not give communion to pro-choice politicians as they have the power to stop the murder (Bishop Burke-former bishop of St. Louis archdiocese and Bishop Finn of Kansas City diocese, for instance.) I’m glad priests like you and Fr. Frank Pavone speak out on this issue. It’s a serious matter and it should be treated as such. Thanks for all you do.

LENBER:

“President Bush has had a very cozy relationship with the Vatican, and set a presidential record by meeting with the Pope six times.”

Very cozy indeed, sometimes for the good, and at other times for utterly and criminally contra-productive [things], such as siding with Bush in Criminal Wars (for the Vatican just Abortion is a Crime) or siding with Israel on their Criminal Occupation of Palestine.

All Thanks to Vatican II Double Crossers.

FATHER JOE: I am not sure I would coin the Bush Doctrine or International efforts in such negative terms. However, as for the Pope, you seem to be terribly deceived. The Vatican opposed the invasion of Iraq. Tarek Aziz (the former president) was a Catholic. He made a retreat in Rome and saw the Pope (John Paul II) the week prior to the invasion. The state of Israel is also not entirely happy that the Vatican, again and again, sides with Palestinians (who are largely Islamic but include an ancient Christian community). Formal recognition and diplomatic ties were held up because of Vatican concerns for the Palestinian people. The late Arafat, at the end of his life, remarked that he saw the Vatican as his ally in the conflict for Palestinian rights. Zionism was condemned by both the UN and by the Church. Arafat used to attend the Christmas Mass in Bethlehem with his wife (who is a Christian). The Catholic Church is no one’s stooge, not for Bush and not for Israel. The Holy Father (both JPII and BXVI) has spoken to President Bush, (he meets a lot of people) and they share much in regard to the unborn, however on matters like the Middle East and capital punishment, there is a great divide.

MICHAEL:

Tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Think of the millions of lives that were snuffed out in this “free” country.

May God have mercy on us!

GENUS LILIUM:

I am completely against abortions. I have children and I have learned that some vaccinations are grown off of human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue, not to mention all the other chemicals, heavy metals, and animal products. That seems like it might be a problem to me. Now that I know this, would it be wrong for me to continue to vaccinate my children? Is it just a money scheme? I really don’t want that stuff in my kids.

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Eucharist, Morality, Politics, Priests, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Youth | Leave a comment »

Divorce & Remarriage, a Witness from the Other Side

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Father Joe

I want to share a response to my remarks about Catholic teaching from a man hurt and angry about his wife’s divorce and subsequent remarriage. While we only know his side of the case, I found myself very sympathetic toward his concerns. No annulment was granted and yet it appears that her pastor permitted her to return to the sacraments. This is problematical and, not privy to the situation, I am at a loss as to what the extenuating circumstances might be. The reader should be warned that while I censored a couple of words, the language is sometimes harsh and crude. Further, we have many good people who have suffered divorce, received proper annulments and have started to rebuild a life wounded by an earlier bad and invalid marriage. I praise the Lord for how the Church and divine grace has brought healing and hope to their lives. But this post is about someone who is still hurting and who feels left out or abandoned. We do not know the grounds for the divorce or why the annulment was denied. What we see is a man angry that his wife divorced him; angry that she has married again and will not be coming home; and angry that a seemingly passive Church will not excommunicate and punish her.

Here is what Karl wrote, please note that my response immediately follows:

As a victim of a destroyed marriage due to the Catholic Church’s acceptance and encouragement of divorce, adultery and remarriage without an annulment (which is exactly the situation I faced), your question of divorce is invalid and shows that you really do not know what is going on in the Catholic Church.

I speak from experience.

I have seen tremendous evil and have begged for intervention at every level in the Catholic Church and only am ignored in spite of the FACTS!

Father Joe, the Church is a whore and the clergy are her pimps and none of them care to really understand the evil they are about.

With a broken heart, I say this is absolutely true and if the Pope had the COURAGE to give me a private audience, along with my adulterous wife, her lover and all of our children, he would be heartbroken if he opened his mind, which I think is beyond him. He would see what I have seen and see how my pleas for justice and for healing a Sacramental marriage have been ridiculed and ignored, while the adultery of my wife and her lover, in the face of two Roman Rotal decisions in favor of OUR SACRAMENT have been encouraged and supported for now over sixteen years!

Show some guts and get me a Papal audience, at the Church’s expense and the Pope will never be the same about these issues if he could but open his mind and LISTEN.

For the record, such as this commentary, it is a scandal and should not be said, unless it IS true; before Jesus Christ I have stated herein what is the TRUTH and am very willing to be held accountable for it, but only by those capable of objective, truthful analysis and free from assailing by any legal entity or ecclesial entity. I know their blood thirst for vengeance.

You may be a nobody among priests, Father Joe, but what you have read here is the TRUTH. Ignore it or say it is the rant of a madman and your Savior will know what is in your heart.

You can also be assured that there are many others who have experienced what I have and know this but who are ignored by the Catholic Church.

We DO NOT NEED OR WANT kind words. We DO NOT WANT spiritual direction.

We want accountability among the priests and bishops for what has been done to us. And we want it done publicly since publicly our marriage has been violated.

We want JUSTICE, not VENGEANCE.

We want our SACRAMENTS RESPECTED AND SUPPORTED BY ACTIONS NOT WORDS AND FALSELY PIOUS WORDS!

We want our marriages healed, which in cases like this can only be accomplished with Canonical sanctions – EXCOMMUNICATION.

Excommunication is supposed to be used to restore a person to the state of grace but instead nothing is done while our spouses are completely accepted by the Church as a couple, albeit not married in the Church, but nevertheless functioning as a married couple, while usually deceiving all by saying the arrangements are “brother and sister.” All this is with Rotal decisions stating just the opposite.

When was the last time brothers and sisters dated or took a romantic vacation together?

I dare you to have the [deleted] to preach about this scandal from your pulpit. I would come to hear you and answer questions if you had the guts and were willing to openly challenge the Bishops and the Pope.

I would like to hear what you think, but do not waste my time with piety if you are moved to believe that there is some truth in what I have told you. (I have heard so much [deleted] empty words from priests!) But I am passed being patient/understanding unless the person is willing to go to the wall with me on this issue.

You have no idea of the rage that this injustice breeds or the guilt we feel for our rage and our desperate desire to get rid of all the anger, to heal our marriages to forgive and to be forgiven. But not a single Bishop, at least in the US, cares enough to make this a prominent issue for the press, since the rest of the Church will do NOTHING.

Karl

RESPONSE FROM FATHER JOE

Dear Karl,

I am sorry about what happened to you in your marriage. Even the Holy See has offered subtle warnings and guidance about the large number of annulments in the United States. The response is usually that we have the largest number of canon lawyers in the world or that Americans are generally immature and have difficulty making true commitments. Along with you, I think there is rampant abuse in the system. However, just because divorce and remarriage seems easy in this nation, and I have only had two annulment cases out of countless ones submitted that were turned down, still the truth remains that Jesus hates divorce and it is labeled “sin.” Admittedly, there are priests who would disagree with me, at least as to how this teaching is expressed. Certainly the Separated and Divorced Catholics groups might find such a verdict painful; however, I find disturbing that a number of sanctioned support groups often function as dating services for men and women who are not free to marry or even to have romantic relationships (adultery) . I must quickly add that this is NOT the case with all groups which focus on healing after these losses.

I know it is anger and frustration speaking when you label the Church “a whore” and all her clergy “pimps.” But remember, that no matter how sinful the membership (including the clergy), the Church is holy because Christ is holy. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As for clergy, yes we have more than our share of rascals; but I would contend, from my own associations, that most of them are good men who love the Lord and sacrifice much in the service of his people. Good priests keep their promises, just as we want married couples to keep theirs.

It would seem that if the Roman Rota ruled in favor of the sacrament of marriage between you and your wife, then the Pope is actually already on your side. Unfortunately, it is a big Church and even papal universal jurisdiction has a hard time breeching the mechanizations of the local churches and the various bishops. One of the reasons that Rome insists that a second tribunal affirm or cancel the decision of the primary tribunal is to help insure justice.

I know a good man, and a devout Catholic, who suffers daily because his wife left him for another man. He fought the divorce and later he tried to stop the annulment. However, he failed. He still goes to Mass and often he weeps at prayer in loss for her and in distress about the Church. He is absolutely convinced, despite the verdict of the marriage tribunal, that she is still his wife. He spurns suggestions that he should date and marry again. That would be adultery, he tells everyone, and knowing him I would be inclined to agree with him. I never met his wife and cannot say what kind of person she is, but knowing her husband (or ex-husband) my impression of her is not good. I am not blind that such things are going on. But neither can I water down what has always been the official teaching of the Church, and a prohibition (against divorce) that comes from the very mouth of Jesus.

The difficulty is that there are some invalid and unlawful marriages.

If the groom sleeps with the maid of honor the night before the wedding, I would say there is something seriously wrong already with the necessary intention.

If the man is partially paralyzed and impotent, he cannot lawfully consummate the marriage.

If there is an absolute opposition to children and intercourse is always contraceptive, the marriage is negated by the rejection of its principal object or good.

If the girl’s “pappy” forced the boy to marry his daughter at the end of a shotgun, then coercion negates the authenticity of the bond.

I have even turned down weddings that other priests eventually witnessed, as when one or both of the parties is mentally deranged. I recall one lady who was a heavily medicated paranoid schizophrenic. The drugs that drowned out the invisible voices would deform any child conceived. I recommended that she keep a platonic friendship, but that God was not calling her to marriage. They went to another priest and he did the deed. She got pregnant and had to go off medication. As a screaming insane person, necessity required that she be tied to a bed for months. Her husband walked off, like I suspected he would. The child had all sorts of defects and was eventually taken away from her. It was a real mess. She was incapable of the responsibilities of marriage. And her spouse was a lazy bum.

Prenuptial agreements are the big topic these days. They imply a level of doubt that invalidates the vows. Such contracts are forbidden to Catholics, but couples sometimes lie to priests.

These are real if extreme cases, but they represent some of the genuine areas where tribunals are “supposed” to judicate.

I have even had guys who were married before who tried to hide their previous bonds! One girl had gotten married by a bogus priest!

Another fellow had a vasectomy and failed to tell the bride. She wanted a big family and found out afterwards that all he wanted was to violate her virginity.

I have seen it all. I am not the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand. And yet, I sympathize with you and share your concern about laxity in the annulment system.

I have never met the current Pope myself and so I am the last one to ask in getting you an audience with him. However, he is no fool, and I think he is aware of the abuses that are happening. Much is going on behind the scenes to improve things, but I suspect it will move too slowly to assist you. I am sorry for the pain you feel. I do not know about any “blood thirst for vengeance” and do not know the particulars in the case your wife brought against you. However, I can promise you my prayers and personal good will.

Yes, I suppose you could say that I am a “nobody among priests,” but every priest can forgive sins and confect the Eucharist, and so in this light I always feel especially privileged and blessed.

I beg you not to reject the compassion, spiritual direction and formation that the Church and good priests have to offer. You may not want kind words, but I suspect that Jesus would want me to extend them to you, all the same. As for direction, I must encourage you to stay close to the Church and to Jesus. Our Lord’s sacred heart knew what it meant to be betrayed and abandoned. Find solidarity with him in prayer and hope to enrich and live your life. We really have little or no control over what other people do. We do have some say about what we, individually, do. We all have crosses of some sort or another. Join yours to Christ’s. Life is not fair. People we want to respect disappoint us. The “happy ever after” ending of fairytales often does not materialize…at least not in this world.

It is right to want “accountability” among our priests and bishops, but as the Scriptures tell us, “vengeance” belongs to the Lord. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that great Tribunal before which we will all one day stand.

People argue for the censure of excommunication these days as if its imposition would cure everything. It does not restore a person to a state of grace. Indeed, it often hardens hearts and people walk away from the faith entirely. It does the opposite from what we might expect. The person is cut off from the Church, the sacrament of salvation. What we should not forget is that which is most basic in regard to rebellion, and that is plain old mortal sin. It does not have to be imposed; the person incurs it immediately and directly by enmity with God and the violation of his commandments. Clergy and other Church officials who do not take their responsibilities seriously, or who are hypocritical, will be punished by God. People who “knowingly” commit adultery will be punished as well. St. Paul says that adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals will have no part in the kingdom of God. It does not get more serious than that. Please do not forget, that while righteous indignation is permissible, violent anger and seeking revenge are also serious sins. Jesus gave us a response pattern; he forgave his murderers from the Cross.

Catholics not married in the Church are not truly married. You write, Karl, that your wife and her “new husband” are “…functioning as a married couple, while usually deceiving all by saying the arrangements are ‘brother and sister.’” There is a peculiar arrangement permitted by the Church where pastors can allow a couple not married in the Church to feign such a situation in the attempt to avoid scandal. It is called INTERNAL FORUM. However, the couple has to be elderly and the annulment has to be impossible to receive. They are forbidden to publicize the true nature of their relationship and they are forbidden to have any sexual congress. They must live as brother and sister. Is this what happened? [Rome and certain canonists, I learned recently, have become much more strict and hesitant to tolerate internal forum situations.]

The trouble here is that the companionship and affection owed to the lawful spouse is still withheld (or given the wrong party).

Almost everyone in my last parish was elderly. It was a small place. Over the years, however, I have spoken about the sacrament of marriage and the evil of divorce. A number of my priest friends have done the same. I am not sure this necessarily brings one into opposition with the Pope and every bishop, either. Archbishop Wuerl has said wonderful things about the indissolubility of marriage in his catechism and television program.

Let us avoid vulgarity. Dialogue must be respectful. I am a priest and I belong to the Church. The question is not whether I will stand with you, Karl, but whether or not we will both stand with Jesus.

You do not want to hear pious talk, but honestly, there are some wounds that cannot be healed in this world. Life is messy and we struggle in a society of sinners with too few saints. All God is asking of you and me is that we be faithful. We may never know success, but that is okay, as long as there is fidelity.

“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Peace,
Father Joe

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Catholic, Divorce, Eucharist, Marriage, Morality, Sacraments, Sexuality | 12 Comments »

14 Year Old Girl Risks Life at Sea Alone!

Posted on August 21, 2010 by Father Joe

The world is crazy! This morning I read in the news that a 14-year-old Dutch girl, Laura Dekker, headed out to sea from Portugal in the hopes of becoming the youngest person to sail ALONE around the world. If you were to ask me, I would say her parents should be locked up and the child placed in protective custody. I would question the judgment of an adult and experienced sailor who would attempt such an unnecessary stunt. But this is only a teenage girl who should be entering the eighth grade. I do not care if she wants to do it or not. Parents who take their responsibilities seriously must sometimes say NO to kids! She is not even legal age for a license, let alone for such a perilous disregard for her life. Do her parents and manager think they will get famous and share big money for her adventure? I noticed from the story that they are trying to sell the rights to the videos of her trip. Here is voyeurism taken to the extreme. Given the clamor these days about child abuse, and rightfully so, does no one else see this as exploitive and hurtful? If this is not child endangerment then I do not know what is. I would hope if she survives to reach American waters that the Coast Guard would intercept her and take her butt back home where it belongs.

The latest word is that her communications equipment is malfunctioning. She is making her trip in a 38 foot long ship called, “Guppy.” The trip will take over a year! The truant officer is going to have his work cut out for him when she fails to report to school. Homeschooling requires a parent teacher and she has no supervision at all. The Dutch child protection services rightfully questioned such insanity. This girl will have to travel the world’s oceans alone, in a ship made for far shorter excursions when fully staffed.

I guess the courts are a disappointment all around the world. We criticize them here at home on matters like abortion and the Dutch court releases the girl in question from the secure guardianship of Dutch child protection services. The agencies were reasonably fearful for her safety and psychological health. No sooner was she released last month, she was spirited away, said goodbye to her dad and friends, and set sail from an undisclosed Portuguese port on her attempt to circumnavigate the globe.

One supporter argued that the kid was mature for her age and had passed a maritime examination given in the Netherlands. Whoopee! I can fly a kite; maybe I should tie rockets to my backend and shoot for the moon? No, I do not think so. Seriously, she might have grown up on boats with her father, but the key term forgotten here is “with her father.” This young girl is now alone on the seas. Most grown men would panic at such a prospect. There is not simply the issue of the inherit danger and challenges: mechanical failures, abrupt weather changes, etc. But what effects might there be upon her own mental health in being alone for so long? What kind of lasting effects might it have on one so young? If this girl gets hurt or worse yet, dies— I suspect there will be a lot of “passing the buck” and finger-pointing. But her father (and mother, if she is around), her manager, and the Dutch courts will be guilty of abuse and murder.

The Guinness Book of Records reported that they will have nothing to do with it. Concerned about the health and lives of children, they no longer record the attempts of the “youngest” sailors. I would recommend that we all keep this young girl in our daily prayers. If her own parents will not protect her, we can commend her to the watchful eyes of our heavenly Father.

What do you think?

How young might this crazy business ultimately go?

Filed under: Family, Morality, Youth | 7 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Marriage

Posted on August 18, 2010 by Father Joe

Does the Bible say that Christian marriage is a sacrament and more than a mere civil contract?

Yes, and we find the evidence from the mouth of Christ. The Lord tells us: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6). St. Paul adds: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . This mystery is a profound one [great sacrament], and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:25,32).

What is the special grace that comes to a couple in marriage?

They are given the divine grace to join their hearts into a more intimate, more lasting, and more holy love. They are enabled to raise their children in reverence or holy fear and love of God.

Does the Bible actually say that married people should not remarry while their spouse is alive?

Jesus made it quite clear: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh . . . So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:5-6).

Does the Bible forbid divorce?

Yes, although many churches, which profess Christ, have permitted it on their own authority. It is evidence that the Catholic Church is the true biblical Church and the one steadfast in Christ and his truths. Difficult teachings are not eliminated or ignored simply because they are difficult or out of fashion. A proper reading of Matthew 19:6-9 shows Christ’s mind on the subject: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Then they ask Jesus, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Our Lord responded: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [unlawful or lewd conduct, actually incest], and marries another, commits adultery.” Again, St. Paul adds upon the subject: “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). “Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Romans 7:2-3). Obviously the rights of the husband and the wife are here the same and the law holds for the husband, too.

Does the Catholic Church grant divorces?

No, although there is an annulment process which many Catholics pursue after a civil divorce. If it is determined that there was a serious impediment to a true marriage in the first instance, a marital union might be declared annulled. However, if the marriage were true, it is indissoluble. If the first marriage is a valid sacrament, it can only end at the death of one of the spouses.

Why does the Church forbid marriages among close relatives?

The prohibition in Matthew’s Gospel is certainly part of the answer. Besides violating the natural order, such bonds often prove wanting and the offspring deficient in mental and bodily development.

Why is there the custom of publishing banns?

Often made optional today, or dispensed by lawful authority, banns were published as a public announcement. Not only did this notify a parish community, but it also prevented perilous elopements, and invited general information about their freedom to marry. After such a publication, one would quickly discover if there were a prior promise from either of the parties to marry someone else of if there were a serious impediment to marriage.

What are the duties of husband and wife?

They are to live together in peace, love and fidelity. They are to raise their children as good Christians, sharing each other’s joys and sorrows.

How is this sacramental covenant enacted?

Taking each other’s right hand, they render their vows or consent before the priest or deacon. The priest blesses them and confirms their union. The priest witnesses marriages. Couples, themselves, are the actual ministers of the sacrament. The rings are blessed by the priest and they place them on each other’s fingers with the appropriate prayer. A Nuptial Blessing comes at the end of the service. If it takes place during Mass, and they are both Catholic, they will also receive Holy Communion. The marriage is fully consummated when they go home and share the marital act.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Questions, Sacraments, Sexuality | 18 Comments »

Same-Sex Marriage or Adoption Services

Posted on February 18, 2010 by Father Joe

The Archdiocese of Washington has been forced to follow the path of Boston in terminating (or in this case transferring) its foster care and adoption services. I have dear friends who received their boy and girl through Catholic Charities. It was always an impetus of the Church to insure that the children went to good, wholesome and loving homes of faith. The District of Columbia City Council refused to refer the matter to a public referendum and denied religious exemptions to the new same-sex marriage law. Gay advocates will no doubt argue that the Church is abandoning the poor. The truth is that the Church was forced out of a valuable service to children and potential parents by the city government. Our services and personnel are being handed over to the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) which has roots in the Baptist Church. How is it that they can do what we cannot? Does this mean that children for whom we formerly cared are now vulnerable to adoption by homosexuals?

Here is a portion of the press release from the Archdiocese:

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington transitioned its foster care and public adoption program in the District of Columbia to the National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) on February 1, 2010. Catholic Charities remains committed to continuing to serve the vulnerable of the District of Columbia through the 82 programs the agency operates in the region.

Although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation’s capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same sex marriage law.

This is the only program Catholic Charities anticipates will be impacted by the law.

The Archdiocese had a choice to make, collaborate with sin or remain steadfast behind the moral teachings of the Catholic faith. It is a sad day. Our adoption services was a wonderful complement to our pro-life efforts. It demonstrated that we were both about saving the child in the womb and about helping children already born and potential parents to find each other. Where there was once a partnership between the City and the Church; the City government has now chosen to create an adversarial relationship.

Filed under: Archdiocese, Morality, Politics, Sexuality, Sin | 3 Comments »

Arguing with a Gnostic Fake Bishop

Posted on May 20, 2007 by Father Joe

LINK: False Worship at John Paul II Cultural Center?

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN: (Fort Worth Texas USA)

You are insulting the legacy of St. John Paul the Great…

He did far more loving actions than the Bishop in the photo!!!!

Traditionalists of EXTREMEISM are being used by demonic forces as LIBERALIST…

The darkness will use ANY vehicle, even PIOUSness to wound the DIVINE HEART of JESUS…

WATCH OUT PEOPLE!!!!

FATHER JOE:

Bishop Kevin Vann is the genuine Bishop of Fort Worth, Texas. You sir, are an imposter!

The post here was never meant to tarnish the late Pope’s reputation. The problem is that mistakes have sometimes been made that cannot be easily excused. Christians can have no part in pagan prayer and worship. That is the long and short of it.

This so-called “bishop” feels differently, Bishop Richard St. John is a faker. Posting here under the guise of a Catholic bishop shows the depth of his deceit. He is nothing of the kind!

Who is he?

He writes this at an interfaith site:

His defective apostolic pedigree…

“We have a lot in common. I was communicating with the U.G.C. (Universal Gnostic) but I haven’t the cash to take all the lessons. We both are bishops from +Lewis K. who I’ve known for many years. I also know some other Gnostic Prelates: +Hoeller and +Rosamonde Miller. I also have been a Bishop in +Michael Bertiauxs Church.”

His heretical Gnosticism and occult involvement…

“I’m more on the “catholic side” of Gnosticism. I love comparative religion, metaphysics, shamanism, Wicca, and psychic development.”

He is unemployed but should go out and get a job…

“At this time I don’t have an active pastoral ministry or sacramental apostolate.”

He sits around all day and plays on the computer…

“I enjoy e-mail or snail mail with other kindred souls who Spirit brings upon my path.”

He is very gay…

“I’m going through a lot of changes right now regarding work etc. I’m a single gay guy, who is a Super-Uncle of my sis: 5 kids and one great-niece!!!”

He uses the Wiccan closure…

“Blessed Be.”

What does the utterly heretical Universal Gnostic Church says about itself and him? He is aligned with an occult group that calls itself the Universal Gnostic Fellowship. It claims to trace its apostolic lineage not simply to Jesus but to Adam. They claim their holy orders were initiated by a host of Gnostic masters, including Mary Magdalene. While they claim a doctrine of the one, it is really a form of pantheism where everything is seen as divine. They argue that Old Testament prophets and Christ were occult shamans or witch-doctors. They reject all other doctrines. This group is not really even Christian, but is pagan in nature. Instead of a unique creation, they claim that all people are merely fractured bits and pieces of the divine. They repudiate, absolutely, the following teachings: “original sin, damnation, hellfire, virgin birth, tithing, and “others whose purpose is to subjugate the masses for the benefit the priesthood.” They subscribe to a long list of sacraments, some quite peculiar and others redefined, like “Child birthing, Naming, Coming of Age, Initiation, Manhood, Womanhood, Handfasting, Exorcism, Elderhood, and Burial of the Dead.”

They impose their counterfeit ministries upon the Ordinate and the Episcopate. Ordination to the Ordinate is conferred upon qualified candidates regardless of age, class, race, color, religious preference, creed, gender or sexual orientation. Just as we apparently saw at the JPII Center, they suffer from a chronic syncretism with deacons, ministers, priests, rabbis, swamis, canons, deacons, deans, deaconesses, and priestesses.

WE SHOULD INDEED BE ALERT, THIS MAN IS NO BISHOP AND APPARENTLY NOT A CHRISTIAN! HE IS PLAYING AT BISHOP AND WOULD LEAD SIMPLE PEOPLE ASTRAY! IF HE WAS EVER A CHRISTIAN, HE IS NOW A GENUINE HERETIC! THERE IS NO GENTLE WAY TO RESPOND TO HIS COMMENT.

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN:

Father Joe, I AM NOT nor EVER said I was the ROMAN Bishop of Fort Worth or anywhere…. I am not an imposter/fake or phony anything. I am one of the most honest/kind/loving/sweet-natured/unselfish people you could EVER meet. I AM in Fort Worth, born here. I AM a valid consecrated prelate in the apostolic succession (from Roman-Greek-Russian-Coptic-Armenian-Melkite-Atiochian-Anglican-Utrech). The Holy See/Holy Father whom I revere, upon studying/knowing of me would 100% respect me as a real/valid/legitimate apostolic bishop…..PERIOD! Our Divine Lord said not to bear false witness so you either read into my email what you humanly wanted (no sin) or you sinned against the Holy Ghost against my holy orders…. mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

NOT ROMAN— with all humility and reverence to His Holiness Benedict 16, Supreme Pontiff.

FATHER JOE:

You sir, in my reckoning are not even a true Christian. That makes any claim to being a bishop a sham. Note that you speak of yourself as “the most honest/kind/loving/sweet-natured/unselfish people you could EVER meet.” Ah, evidently humility is NOT one of your virtues, either. The Church you describe does not really exist; it is a bogus as you are. Pope John Paul II would have nothing to do with you. Indeed, from the way you express yourself, I am becoming concerned that you might not be quite well. If you had “all” humility and reverence to the Pope, you would put away your charade and seek membership in the Catholic faith. As things stand, you are not Roman, not Catholic, not Christian, and not a true bishop. You belong to an occult sect that only masquerades as Christian. Even genuine Orthodox churches do not recognize you or your so-called apostolic orders. I will try not to laugh. I will offer prayer for your healing instead.

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN:

Reverend Father, I posted via your reply without having scrolled down to read all you said.

John Paul received the marking on the forehead of Shiva in India (PHOTO on INTERNET).

John Paul KISSED the KORAN!!!

John Paul received the blessing of VOUDON PRIESTS or Hougans in AFRICA.

JOHN PAUL let Dali Lama priests put statue of BUDDAH on the TABERNACLE in ASSISI.

I AM NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would NEVER disrespect your priesthood!!!

YOU pulled a FBI search on me like a Gestapo Nazi.

I AM not unemployed… thank you!

I have a real job and work my ass off!

I don’t use my holy orders to put a roof over my head.

I live in the REAL WORLD, not a damn rectory with a pious Irish lady cleaning my undies.

I AM a CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN. I profess in “humiltas” the Blessed Trinity and The DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST ONLY. I respect other faiths… you don’t! JOHN PAUL did. I AM GAY….so are thousands of Roman laity, priests, religious, bishops, cardinals and many popes (some were adulterous murderous [deleted] AND STRAIGHT!!!!) You can insult me, slander me, and hate me; but you have INSULTED THE HOLY GHOST— Third Person of The Divine and Blessed TRINITY. You have insulted the dignity of my holy order’s witch have nothing to do with so-called heresy/personal sin/lack of JOB. YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING about ME. You jumped in the cesspool of SATAN and drank it up. YOU ARE A REAL PRIEST but as a human you have shown your feet of clay! Oh how Glorious the Precious Blood of Our Divine Lord Incarnate on Calvary that froggives ME and YOU. May the Divine Mercy heal your HATRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! St. Therese the Little Flower, “ora pro nobis.” St. Padre Pio, “ora pro nobis.” Sancta Maria Mater Dei, “ora pro nobis.” Saint John Paul, “ora pro nobis.” + Richard Saint John baptized Roman with reverence to His Holiness Benedict.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, Pope John Paul II was very compassionate to those who should have been disciplined for making liturgical blunders. The bird poop was an error not orchestrated. The Koran kiss was honor to the givers, not to the gift. The pagan priests gave a blessing on their own initiative. The Buddha statue was a disgrace that Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) was quite upset about in Assisi. No one wanted to give offence, but the idol should have been thrown to the grown and crushed underfoot.

What FBI search? You are being paranoid. Everything I posted, you have already shared “yourself” on the Internet! You say you do not disrespect my priesthood but you call me a Nazi and make up a fictional cleaning woman in my rectory. I wash my own clothes at Holy Spirit! And by the way, being a REAL priest is being in the REAL world. You are a weekend bishop who treats religion like a hobby. You are into the occult and cannot claim to be a true Christian or Catholic. Ours is a jealous God. You cannot worship the idols of demons and honor Jesus.

You more than respect other faiths— you fully embrace them, no matter how incompatible with Christianity.

Like so many active gays you cannot speak about your disorientation without a vulgar slur.

I see a contradiction here. You speak of your “holy order’s witch” but contend that I am the one who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Pleeease, I do not know what “spirit” moves you, but it is not the Advocate sent by Christ!

All I know about you is what you broadcast to the world, and in that respect, the “cesspool of Satan” is yours.

May your “frog” give you forgiveness, but I prefer my reconciliation with God. I suspect the saints pity you.

+MOST REV. RICHARD SAINT JOHN:

I LIVE in FORT WORTH….THANK YOU— BORN HERE, WORK HERE AND my ADDRESS is SUNSET ROAD, FORT WORTH. GET YOUR FACTS OF HATRED STRAIGHT! LYING/FALSE WITNESS is A MORTAL SIN! (St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism) MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MAXIMA CULPA— ohhhh if you’re a post Vat. 2 Kumbaya-Priest, that means “through my fault, through my fault, through my grievous fault!!!!!!” That bishop of the Roman diocese has a priest at my baptismal parish that is more liberal than me. I’ve gone to his Mass (MESS) and wanted to cry cause of what’s going on there ain’t no HOLY SACRIFICE of the MASS. SO GO THROW STONES in your own Roman backyard, padre!

FATHER JOE: Without real holy orders any celebration you give is no Eucharist. Even a liberal priest with the right intention can say Mass and forgive sins. You cannot do this much. You are just playing dress-up. As for the facts, I simply posted what you told everyone.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Apostles, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Ecumenism, Faith, God, Jesus, Morality, Pope, Priests, Sacraments, Salvation, Sin | Comments Off on Arguing with a Gnostic Fake Bishop

USCCB MONITUM: Fr. Ken Roberts

Posted on April 3, 2007 by Father Joe

Fr. Kenneth Roberts is a priest of the Diocese of Dallas, Texas who has been suspended from ministry and also had incurred restrictions (such as not being able to wear clerical garb and from presenting himself as a priest in good standing). He is supposedly living in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and had allegedly been celebrating home Masses and associating with children and teenagers in violation of his suspension and earlier restrictions.

Father Roberts was suspended back in 1998. He is well remembered for his books, tapes, appearances on EWTN, retreats, and support for the Medjugorje apparitions and messages. I have remarked before about the tragedy of the author of PLAYBOY TO PRIEST.

Bishop Katharine Schori – No Hope for Catholic & Anglican Reunion

Posted on June 20, 2006 by Father Joe

Katharine Jefferts Schori, the new leading bishop in the American Episcopal Church is a former Roman Catholic. Her parents brought her into the Episcopal Church when she was “not quite nine” and she attended a Catholic convent school maintained by the Sacred Heart Nuns. She is fluent in Spanish and active in outreach to Hispanics, pretty much all who were formerly Catholic. She is a liberal who voted for the consecration of the openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, three years ago. She also supports the blessing of same-sex unions. She is a scientist, only ordained a priest in 1994.

Victoria Garvey, one of two sergeants-at-arms who escorted Schori to the convention floor after the election, said: “My heart stopped. A number of people — men and women — were weeping. . . . I’m a former Roman Catholic, and part of the reason I made the switch was over women in the church. Thirty years after finally approving women’s ordination, we now have a woman bishop presiding.”

Schori tells a reporter for THE LIVING CHURCH FOUNDATION: “My parents brought me into the Episcopal Church in early 1963, in conjunction with their own move out of the Roman Catholic tradition. This was before Vatican II had had any impact on parish life, and as a fifth-grader, my awareness of the difference was of language (from Latin to English) and of community and style (large and faceless to small and intimate). My understanding of faith in this new community was increasingly about the ability to ask questions. The vicar was a remarkable gatherer of people and artistic gifts into warm, challenging, and effective community. I would summarize my experience of the shift as from a religion of prohibition to one of invitation.”

*****

The 75th General Convention has gone and done it. When I was young I was full of hope that the division between the Catholic and Anglican communities would be healed. But there is no chance now. A few churches and individuals may continue to seek reunion; but as a whole, it cannot happen. The Episcopal church is now solidly in the rank of liberal Protestantism and has abandoned its Catholic and traditional roots. While claiming Scripture, they have dismissed the pattern that goes back to Christ in his selection of men as his apostles, the first bishops and priests of the Church. They have also dismissed clear Scriptural messages where we find divine positive law about such matters like the indissolubility of marriage, the evil of fornication, adultery and homosexual acts. Indeed, with one act, the consecration of Gene Robinson, many of these borders were trespassed; afterall, he had left his wife to live with his gay lover. His consecration was an indirect but real act of approbation toward these evils.

The trouble with a female bishop, from the Catholic perspective, is the fact that we do not see any concrete biblical or traditional evidence that it is God’s will. Pope John Paul II even went so far as to say that we do not have the authority to ordain women. Thus, if the ordinations of men as priests in the Anglican churches were in doubt (because of Orthodox and Old Catholic participation) and in most cases rejected, certainly the sacramental reality is going to be denied completely in regard to women.

There are no priestesses in the Christian religion.

Any priests ordained by women bishops will not be priests themselves.

Any Masses offered by any of them will not be the sacrifice of Christ and will not be the Real Presence!

She calls Catholicism the “religion of prohibition” and in doing so devalues the riches of the Catholic faith, many of which were once shared, even if in a lesser and defective way, in her own Protestant communion. The Church cannot tolerate anything and everything. The last convention, the only moral question upon which the Episcopalians could agree was about a prohibition toward landmines. About everything else they had compromised with a pagan and/or secular modernity.

The new bishop calls homosexuality a gift, not a sin.

Can there be any doubt that she will continue to support the gay agenda and the ordination of openly gay priests and bishops?

The Episcopal churches have already stepped aside regarding the most important issue of the day, abortion.

When asked about the alienation that many feel about her selection, she simply spoke about it as the personal problem of “not knowing another human being.” But of course, the problem in conscience for many conservative Anglicans is that they have Catholic and traditional views on ministry and morality. The problem is not something that a greeting and handshake will resolve.

When asked about the tension with communities that do not accept women priests, her answer was not only flippant but targeted the Catholic discipline. She called the priest an “actor” which is already a far cry from the Roman Catholic view of the priest as an “alterchristus”. A theatrical actor pretends but the Catholic priest at the altar really is offering the sacrifice of Calvary “in the person of Christ, head of the Church.” It is this point of identification which is at the heart of the Catholic dispute with Anglican priestesses. Women cannot stand at the altar as Christ, the bridegroom of the Church. Anyhow, she moves the question first to so-called “pastoral underpinnings” and then quickly dismisses critics of women priests as donatist heretics who put too much emphasis on the holiness and attributes of the actor.

A sacrament, including Holy Orders, requires legitimate MATTER. The Catholic Church has determined that such is a “male” human being. Donatism does not speak to the question of proper matter or intention. Donatism implies that the minister is already validly ordained. The heresy of Donatism is in regard to moral failings and the efficacy of the sacraments. The Church responded to this rigorism by stipulating that the efficacy of the sacraments did not depend upon the worthiness of the minister but on Christ. Therefore, even a priest in mortal sin can hear Confessions and offer the Mass. The Lord protects the sacraments for his people.

Schori would extend the heresy of Donatism to those who would exclude women from the priesthood because they are not men. Good try, but such reasoning does not fly. Neither can it be applied to the dubious priesthood of others in the Anglican communion. Being female is not a moral failing and neither is it an accidental. Men and women are not utterly interchangeable. Our gender touches the core of our identity.

It is unfortunate that Episcopalians cannot always know if their priests are valid or not, but such confusion is not due to Donatism. The Catholic Church makes no claim against their degree of holiness and individual faithfulness (where true Donatists take offense); all we are saying is that if you are not a priest then you cannot offer that work priests are empowered to do.

Elements of discipline like celibacy, poverty and obedience are often required of candidates, but failure in regard to promises and the moral life do not negate the sacraments. While women cannot be validly ordained, homosexual men (given that they are chaste and celibate) can be ordained. However, the question still arises as to whether it is a good or prudential idea. Even homosexual priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church might be valid, given the faith to which they subscribe is sufficiently Catholic and the ordaining bishop or bishops possess apostolic succession. At one time it was pretty clear that all orders in the Anglican churches had become null-and-void and that apostolic succession had been lost. However, given the presence and participation of Old Catholics and the Orthodox at episcopal consecrations, and the defection of Catholic clergy into the Episcopal churches, the matter is less clear today.

The breakup of the Anglican communion is taking place before our eyes. Some are seeking primatial support from Africa and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth Texas has appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other prelates of the Anglican Communion for another primate to have pastoral oversight over the diocese. (However, the Anglican Church in England is also rushing quickly away from its ancient Christian roots and values and practices.) I would hope that some would finally come to their senses and call upon their best friend, Pope Benedict XVI. There are already Anglican-Usage parishes in operation and there is talk that the Pope might even make the concession of lifting the celibacy discipline for future clergy in their churches after reunion. The presence of married clergy in the Catholic Church who were formerly Episcopalian priests has paved a road to this eventuality.

But the tragedy remains that there will be no worldwide reunion. Things have gone too far now. It cannot be fixed. I am not dispairing of the Holy Spirit, just a realist in regard to how people can place secular values over Church tradition and the Gospel. We thought we might have the glass glued back together but then it was deliberately fractured again and again. All we have are splinters now.

Schori opposed the Winsor Report released by the Lambeth Commission on Communion which suggested that the ECUSA make amends and say it was sorry for the trouble caused by electing an openly gay bishop. The report would also have established a moratorium on ordaining homosexual bishops and blessing same-sex couples. Her election is essentially telling the rest of the Anglican communion, NO DEAL!

Schori’s consecration as presiding bishop will be celebrated at the Washington National Cathedral. I wonder if the Catholic and Orthodox prelates will stay away? I hope so, because their presence would only lend credence to a terrible lie– about the health of a church community and about a so-called bishop.

DISCUSSION

And she is also rather creative:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51325

FATHER JOE:

The nominating committee considered her qualifications. Now, it looks like she fabricated a few credentials.

She noted herself as the “pastoral associate and dean of the Good Samaritan School of Theology in Corvallis, Oregon (1994-2000).” The trouble is that no such school of higher learning appears to exist. It turns out, or so she says, this was her name for the adult education program operated by the local parish, over which she was not even rector.

She also wrote that she was the “priest in charge of El Buen Samaritano, Corvallis, Oregon,” which turns out the be the Spanish-speaking parishioners of Good Samaritan Church.

Goodness! She certainly fattened her resume with exaggeration and purposeful deception!

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4536

PATRICK:

As a member of a rapidly-growing Episcopal congregation and a former Roman Catholic, I am thrilled at the consecration of our new Presiding Bishop, but I also know what a rough road she has ahead of her. She is a woman of God, plain and simple. She is perceived as a threat to so many because she is a woman of God who is leading. Her mere presence as Bishop challenges existing hierarchies. But her great faith and intelligence will lead her and the faithful, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic Church has been very good to the Episcopal Church in recent decades. Half of our parish’s growing membership is formerly Roman Catholic, and we expect that trend to continue. So please by all means keep your hearts and minds closed to the real working of the Holy Spirit in the 21st century, and send your members our way! We welcome them with open hearts.

KATHY SCHORI:

[Note that I have almost no doubt that this person is an imposter!]

Hahaha!

Yes, it is truly the work of the Spirit!

Let the superstitious Roman Church insist upon its cookie worship, we know that fellowship is the most central and Jesus’ words should not be taken too literally.

Let the patriarchal Roman Church deny women their role as priests, we are more enlightened today by psychology and sociology over the chauvinists who are slaves of male tradition, no matter if it does go back to Jesus or not.

Let the bigoted Roman Church persecute gay, lesbian and transgendered peoples, we know that anal and oral sex is right and fun, and that no one, not even that gay-basher St. Paul, has a right to say anything different.

Let the bigoted Roman Church alienate the divorced and remarried, we are happy to fill our pews with your adulterers, fornicators and perverts.

Let the Republican Party-controlled Roman Church scream and holler about abortion, we respect people and the hard choices they make, yes even if it means killing unwanted babies.

We make no argument against contraception, either, and if most papists were honest they would leave the Roman whore and join the Episcopal Church where we have beautiful rituals but never take ourselves too seriously, especially in the bedroom.

Save the whales, ban landmines, these are the real Christian issues of our day!

Yes brother Patrick, we welcome the papists to our Episcopal communion.

May the Spirit of the World lead more and more to our ranks.

Amen, I mean, Awomen!

FATHER JOE:

What’s going on here? Are you guys serious?

I hardly need to make a rebuttal.

Such attitudes might drive the more clear thinking souls back to the Catholic Church.

Goodness me.

PAUL R:

I would like to congratulate you on this excellent article, Father Joe, which is particularly valuable to Episcopalians/Anglicans because it gives a view from the outside. You have hit the main point on the head. The Episcopal Church is forsaking its roots in Holy Scripture and Tradition and becoming increasingly “Post-Christian” and neo-pagan.

Also, while you are correct that the idea of the priest as an “actor” playing the role of Jesus Christ is inaccurate, it may be useful in explaining what I understand to be one of the significant theological reasons for opposing the ordination of women to the priesthood: a woman, no matter how talented an actress she may be, would be “miscast” in the “role” of Jesus Christ in a movie or play about Him. How much more unsuitable would she be as an Alter Christus (or as the Orthodox might put it as a living icon of Christ at the altar)?

Pray for me, Father, as I pray for you.

FATHER JOE:

You have my prayers.

JOHANNIM:

It was only a matter of time since Pope Henry 8th ripped an unwilling English people away from the Catholic Church that the Anglican/Episcopal church would start breaking up. The Anglican church in 2007 is a mere shell of what it once was. Reactionaries, revisionist of the worst ilk now control this faith group from London to Washington from Sydney to Ottawa. The Anglicans in the developing world will have none of it and at their last meeting Orthodox Anglican bishops even refused to share communion with neo Marxist fanatics & pro homosexual bishops from Europe & North America. Whole parishes are returning to the Roman Catholic Church and the trend is increasing. There is even an Anglican rite growing in popularity in the Catholic Church as more and more Anglicans & their priests leave that church. With the advent of Pope Benedict 16th and the recent motu proprio SUMMARUM PONTIFICUM and the resurgence of the ancient divine liturgy often referred to as the Tridentine aka Latin Mass whose roots go back to the 3rd & 4th century of the common era there is a tremendous increase in attendance throughout Europe of (predominantly) Catholic youth attending the ancient Mass, as the Novus Ordo declines millions are returning to the Roman Catholic Church. The same phenomenon is occurring in North America in that where the ancient Latin Mass is offered the churches are literally packed to the rafters with predominately young people. To be an Anglican these days means to believe in anything you want even to denial of Christ’s divinity. The glue that kept the Anglicans together for 400 yrs. is dissolving and that glue was polite civility between the warring factions of Henry the 8th schismatic church. No longer does low, broad or high church Anglicans tolerate each other. The Anglican church today and it’s offshoots like Methodism would even disgust Karl Marx & Adolf Hitler. It’s all very sad. Shalom.

ROBERT HAWKINS:

Roman Church controlled by “Republicans?” The Catholic Church in the United States is overwhelmingly Democrat. Give me a break.

MISTER SMITH:

First of all the theology that the presiding bishop is wrong!! Of course I am not surprised that the Church will grow!! Most people want to her what they want to her. Same sex marriage, the homosexual lifestyle should be acceptable, she might is well ordain people who steal!! Why? They believe they are born that way; let’s not take that from them too.

Filed under: Bishops, Church, Commandments, Ecumenism, Morality, News, Priestesses, Religion, Women Priests | 6 Comments »

China, Business & Human Rights

Posted on January 31, 2006 by Father Joe

Laura Walker runs a great BLOG. I commented on her post, “Let Them Do Their Business.” I made a few comments of my own.

For the whole thread visit her site at http://www.laurawalker.org:

Am I missing something fundamental? How does Chris Smith justify interfering in Google’s business?

The decision by Chris Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey who chairs a House subcommittee on Human Rights, to call for a February 16 hearing to examine the operating procedures of US internet companies in China, represents the first signs of what could become a serious backlash against Google and other internet companies in Washington that are perceived as capitulating to the Chinese government.

What are the hearings supposed to accomplish? Why not let Google incur the righteous wrath of the global market? Why should the government get involved?

Chris is a man of conviction who believes in justice and the right to life. He has even been critical of fellow Republicans who made too many compromises. I have heard him speak many times and have had several personal conversations with him, even on the steps of the Capitol (two women I know work in his office). He reminds me of Jimmy Stewart’s MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON.

If he ran for President, I would probably vote for him.

Chris Smith is a wonderful pro-life politician who is very concerned about the issue of human rights. He wants to send a sign to the Internet business community that it should not collaborate with governments that seek to silence and to oppress their people.

Back in 2002, China blocked access to Google from Chinese computers and attempted to create its own search engine, with limited results. In return for access, Google has created software to exclude content not approved by the Chinese government.

Although not mentioned here, Chris Smith no doubt also wants to send a message to Microsoft (MSN) that they are not exempt from such an investigation either. They also censor their search engine for the Chinese and have even taken down Chinese BLOGs deemed political by the government. I read of one case recently where the information provided about the identity of the Blogger was used by the Chinese government to prosecute the man responsible. That means that collaboration with the Communists by Internet companies in the U.S. could lead to the imprisonment or even the torture and execution of men and women in China.

I would say that was pretty important and given that Chinese slave labor provides many of our goods today; it is doubtful that the business community left to itself would do anything about it.

Of course, it was our government that has permitted trade with China, despite human rights concerns … and Chris Smith is only one man.

NOTES:

CHINESE TRADE
Smith, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, continued, “Through the efforts of the Clinton Administration, we have abandoned the American ideals of freedom and democracy for the sake of marginally cheaper consumer goods from China. We have squandered our patrimony of liberty for the profit of corporations who want access to China’s inexpensive labor market. It is time to do an about face, to condition expanded trade relations upon respect for internationally recognized, fundamental human rights. If we can promote sanctions for video games and rock-and-roll, why can’t we do it to preserve human rights?”

CHINA & GOOGLE
“It is astounding that Google, whose corporate philosophy is ‘don’t be evil,’ would enable evil by cooperating with China’s censorship policies just to make a buck,” said Smith, who has been a leading human rights advocate since being elected to Congress. “China’s policy of cutting off the free flow of information is prohibitive for the growth of democracy and the rule of law. Many Chinese have suffered imprisonment and torture in the service of truth – and now Google is collaborating with their persecutors.”

GW’s old man, the first George Bush, would agree with arguments that it is better to allow unrestricted business cooperation with China. Although, it seems that we have become as dependent upon their goods as they are with our money. Many of the social changes about which we hoped have failed to materialize. As for myself, I would also argue for political and economic relations with them; but always with strings attached. Our treatment of Taiwan after the Nixon/Ford Administrations has always bothered me. As for Hong Kong, the British made a treaty with a China that no longer existed; they should have been given sovereignty. But those are my pet notions. While our country is no paragon of virtue, nations and the world community do have an obligation to insure that businesses and organizations do not trample upon basic human rights. Collaboration with evil makes one an accomplice, for which God will judge each and every one of us. Utilitarian arguments are out rightly rejected by the Catholic Church.

I recall the arguments about opening Western businesses to China when the first President Bush gave most favored status to China; and certainly no one wants to isolate China from the rest of the world. However, economics is the only wedge short of military intervention that we have with the Communists. Do we sacrifice human rights at the altar of consumerism and materialism, either of the Socialist or Capitalist variety?

This growing middle-class in China is still less than one percent of the population. Most of the wealth generated goes to a few hundred families among the upper Communist hierarchy. Middle-class in China translates to making between $3,000 to $12,000 a year, what would rate as the poverty level in the U.S. Many of these will themselves have a servant or maid that is paid $50 a month. 70% of the 1.3 billion population are peasants who earn about $100 a year!

Guess what? Finding computers in schools and coffee-houses, the majority of the bloggers and those questioning Chinese politics are from the poor! Religious persecution is still a predominate cause for Internet censorship and prosecution. This includes the Chinese who reject the Patriotic Catholic Church and accept the authority of the Pope. The Internet is giving people in China a voice to speak out about oppression. Big business left to itself does not care about this; even many in government do not. People who embrace the basic human values in government and business must work together, not only against oppression in lands like China, but also against the passivity and blindness of so many in the West.

I generally believe that government should not interfere with business; however, I qualify this with the exception of human rights. When Prell Shampoo a few years ago was purportedly adding human fetal material to shampoo as “animal protein”– individuals, organizations and government got involved and asked questions. We have fair labor laws that try to preserve safety and dignity to workers. Products produced by companies must face safety requirements. Again and again, when it comes to human rights, governments and other organizations must get involved.

China might be on the other side of the globe. But they are people too with basic human rights and dignity. We should not enable, either through inactivity or secondary collaboration, those who would silence the voice of the poor, those yearning to be free.

A television news report announced that because of contracts with companies like Matel, 90% of all toys sold in the U.S. are manufactured in China. Few Chinese children will ever play with such toys. Autom Catholic Religious Goods catalogues advertise inexpensive articles, almost all from China. However, all of it is reserved to foreign export and domestic circulation would be regarded a crime. Heck, even my DVD Player has “Made in China” on the back.

Dollar Stores came into existence because of this trade. Other nations could step in, but there is no underestimating its vast scope.

Critics are right, while it would cost us, the U.S. could flex its business muscle for the sake of human rights. But each year the interdependence seems to become more pervasive. There may come a day when such an action would be too costly.

To illustrate how things have so rapidly changed, it was only in the 1980’s that the last television set wholly manufactured in the U.S. was produced (ZENITH). Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and now also China produce them for us. When it came to clothing, many of us always looked for the “Union Label” and took pride in wearing shirts, pants, and dresses manufactured in the U.S. But the cost disparity became too much for the poor and the average working man. This started happening in the 1960’s. I recall my first concession to the trend when my mother bought me a new coat for school. It was the mid-1960’s and the coat’s label read, “This coat is manufactured by the free people of the Republic of SOUTH VIETNAM.” Evidently it was an effort to support our allies economically while in conflict with the Communist North. I wore that coat with pride, even though I was only in the fourth grade, because (in my mind) it symbolized freedom and justice.

By the way, there was an expose some years ago about Walmart where reporters followed shirts and pants from China sweatshops to the U.S. They found that they were sold at Walmart carrying the designation, “Made in the U.S.A.” When challenged about this, the executives at Walmart said that there was nothing deceptive for while the clothes were of Chinese origin, the attached label was indeed, made in the Unites States.

Not deceptive? The label? And these are the people who are supposed to stand up for human rights and justice?

The dilemma about the Internet is just the newest wrinkle in this situation: how far do you collaborate with thugs to make a buck? Where arguments might be made that trade helps the poor and middle class of China; for an American or Western company to assist in the restriction of information and free speech of Chinese dissidents is something else. And to hand over information that leads to the arrest, imprisonment, and maybe torture of such people is the worst case scenario.

I am not utterly opposed to trade with China.

But I do have problems with Google installing censorship software at the behest of the Chinese government that blocks religious sites like the Vatican and Free the Fathers and Blogs where men and women yearning to be free speak out.

The Chinese tried to create their own search engine back in 2002 and made a mess of things. We should not be helping them in this. It is a criminal act, at least in the eyes of God.

DISCUSSION

FATHER JOE:

I am not an isolationist. What one critic said to me was correct; we bargain with the devil every day.

We can hope that our relationships with the Red Chinese and Moslem extremists will make a difference; but we should never let down our guard and directly cooperate in human oppression. Communism is not dead, and instances of free enterprise can disappear tomorrow if the dragon awakens. Some of our so-called allies in the war against terror are themselves corrupt and oppress minorities, women and others. Is the pacified Westernized Islam that we see here at home the true faith of Mohammed; or is its genuine face really the Hamas and the extremism that we see in the Middle East and now parts of Africa and Asia?

Trade with China will not in itself prevent a new Cold War. Indeed, their military buildup is largely financed with our own money. Oil money in the Middle East can also translate into a fearful New World. I am not sure what we can do about much of this. Such questions will not be resolved by bloggers, but at least we have the freedom to speak, which some do not have. And Western and American companies should not help to silence voices.

I only wish people in all walks of life would more effectively engage these issues and that politicians would devise a clear plan about where our policies are taking us. We tend to be so short-sighted, instead of looking to the horizon.

ERIN:

I don’t disagree with the things you’ve posted either; in fact, I agree strongly with the statement that we should stand up for human rights, individually and as a country. However, I think if Google can get a working window to the internet into China, even with severe restrictions and censorship in place, isn’t it better than nothing? It’s a start – a way for the poor people of China to start looking around and seeing the possibilities of the internet. And hey, if the porn sites can so creatively sneak around our own censorship models and find ways to get their sites seen, can’t the Underground movements of China and other oppressed areas find ways to speak out and communicate with one another and the outside world?

FATHER JOE:

I guess it all depends upon how seriously Google cooperates with the Red Chinese government. While I am all for the censorship of pornography sites, the protection of children, and the prosecution of those who criminally exploit others; the Communists would use political and religious censorship to oppress their own people. Should Google cooperate in human oppression? What if the censorship software identifies dissidents who could suffer arrest or murder? People still disappear in China. Hackers might find their way around censorship software, but most poor Chinese Blog operators and general users only have elementary computer skills. The issue is bigger than Google. If the poor Chinese can get past the national portal to the Internet, they deserve protection within the international community. The Web can be a great tool for democracy; or we can ruin it like we did so much else of the media.

Filed under: Conscience, Discipleship, Morality, News, Philosophy, Politics, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice | Leave a comment »