An important theme for this blog is the scene in the New Testament where Jesus can be found FLOGGING the money-changers out of the temple. My header above depicts a priest FLOGGING the devils that distort the faith and assault believers. The faith that gives us consolation can and should also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
Emotionalism often pollutes the debate about women’s ordination. As in so many liberal dissents, there seems to be the impression that shouting and acts with shock value can replace rational discussion and humble obedience to the Magisterium and the sacred deposit. Personal biases spouted in slogans will help no one. The sober question has to be asked, what does our Lord reveal to us about this question in the Scriptures and faith of the Church? It is crystal clear that he did not call any women into the number of the apostles (Mark 3:13-19).
First, this fact alone takes on heightened importance because certain women accompanied the group on their journeys and financed their needs (Luke 8:2-3). None of them were given priesthood.
Second, Jesus did not hesitate in dismissing then current religious and cultural attitudes in relating to females. He disregarded the hemorrhaging woman’s legal impurity (Matthew 9:20); he allowed the disreputable woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house to approach him (Luke 7:37); he sided with the adulteress (John 8:11); and he undermined the Mosaic Law in espousing the equal rights of men and women in marriage, protecting the woman from abandonment in divorce (Mark 10:2; Matthew 19:3). Obviously, Jesus could not be coerced by societal prejudices to prohibit women priests; it must have been his own choice.
Third, he illustrated in his stories an unheard of empathy with the lives of women as in the parable of the good housewife (Luke 15:8-10) and of the widow before a crooked judge (Luke 18:1-8). It can be assumed that Jesus did not feel that his exclusion of women from holy orders was any real slight to them.
Fourth, as his disciples, many of the women showed a courage greater than that of the apostles, even so far as to stand at the foot of his Cross (Mark 15:40-41). Individual qualifications apparently took a backseat to other concerns; perhaps the inability of female humanity to image Christ as the head of the Church? Does not the laity, as feminine, still look upon the Cross now transformed into an altar at which the priest renders Christ’s sacrifice? Yes.
Fifth, they were the first to proclaim the Good News on Easter morning, and to the apostles themselves (Matthew 28:7; Luke 24:9; Jn 20:11). Does this not tell us how much the Lord prizes the laity in the Mystical Body? Maybe the problem is not that we esteem the ordained priesthood too highly, but that we look upon the laity too disdainfully. The bulk of all evangelism is still done by the people in the pews. However, despite all this, the women were not mentioned at the Last Supper (Mark 14:17). Surrounded only by the apostles, this absence is made all the more striking since the Passover is a family meal at which women and children were customarily present (Exodus 12:1-14).
In light of this evidence, one can readily conclude that the exclusion of women from priesthood must have been freely and directly willed by Christ.
POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).
The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity has put out an official press release on the FATHER CORAPI SCANDAL. Fr. Gerard Sheehan, the superior writes:
“While SOLT does not typically comment publicly on personnel matters, it recognizes that Fr. John Corapi, through his ministry, has inspired thousands of faithful Catholics, many of whom continue to express their support of him. SOLT also recognizes that Fr. Corapi is now misleading these individuals through his false statements and characterizations. It is for these Catholics that SOLT, by means of this announcement, seeks to set the record straight.”
While I can appreciate the need for a statement, I must admit that I am surprised at the bluntness and the depth of revelation. He remarks about the investigative process and what they discerned from emails, witnesses and other sources that has been going on during the time of the priest’s public ministry:
Fr. Corapi already handed in his resignation in early June.
He paid $100,000 to silence the woman making charges.
Other witnesses were similarly silenced and Fr. Corapi refused to release them for testimony to the investigative team.
He had violated his promise of poverty by holding legal title to over one million dollars in real estate, luxuary cars, boats, etc.
He cohabitated in two states with a known prostitute, recently began sexting one or two women and resorted to repeated drug and alcohol use.
I would not normally even post about such matters, but I can well appreciate the frustation of his superior. Fr. Corapi is a powerful communicator and people love him. If he is guilty of such things and is falsely placing the blame on the leadership of the Catholic Church, then public correction needs to be made. Having said this, I think that the leadership in SOLT must be faulted for allowing this situation to grow so out of hand. They should have reigned him in years ago. Their passivity has now made for a far worse and more scandalous situation. The press release continues:
“SOLT has contemporaneously with the issuance of this press release directed Fr. John Corapi, under obedience, to return home to the Society’s regional office and take up residence there. It has also ordered him, again under obedience, to dismiss the lawsuit he has filed against his accuser.”
A letter of resignation would not release him from his priestly promises and those made to SOLT. A good priest does as he is told. This is a bad situation all around. I wonder how Fr. Corapi will respond? I suppose die-hard fans will contend that the evidence is contrived and that the priest is innocent. And indeed, I would still argue that if he is innocent then he should make his case and work with the process. It is unfortunate that Fr. Corapi has forced this whole matter and scandal into the public forum. But souls are at stake and this delicate situation is about more than one man. If he is guilty, then he should demonstrate sorrow and contrition, placing his ministry and future into the hands of his lawful superiors. It would be a wonderful teaching moment and maybe the highpoint of his ministry. Christ is speaking to him through his superiors. That is how priestly obedience works. But will he listen? Will he fight for his priesthood? This battle cannot be won with militant rhetoric or tactics of subterfuge. He can only find victory by being a faithful son of the Church and a humble priest. He must be courageous and forthright about any revelations exposed by the truth. He must reckon himself as any confessor to be the first among sinners, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” Things will never be the same but God may not be finished with him yet. I pray that Fr. Corapi will make the right choice and work with God’s grace in this.
An element which really upsets me about this situation is how one segment of the Church is set against another. Father Corapi comes under investigation and the priest comes out with a statement that the bishop and his superior have a right to do what they do; but next he talks about the real enemies of the Church and we all know he is targeting those who put him on administrative leave. Then he claims obedience but his personal corporation makes a statement that they are under no one’s thumb and the ministry media business will continue as if nothing has happened. By the beginning of June he submits his resignation and tells his fans weeks later that the Church has forced him out. Bishop Michael Mulvey and his lawful superior, Fr. Gerard Sheehan, SOLT, seek to clarify matters but then there is the public intervention on his behalf of the founders of SOLT, Father Flanagan and the Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Bishop Rene Gracida. Critics and fans of the priest can now take their pick and decry the other side as wrong-headed or evil. The impression is given that the Church is fighting with herself. Despite the lament of Fr. Corapi that this is a plot of the liberals who are out to get him, the battleground that emerges is between very conservative or orthodox churchmen and laity. Liberal revisionists are no doubt having a delight in watching the so-called “religious right” of the Church rip itself apart over the media priest. This has all the makings of a new voyeuristic television program called THE BATTLING BISHOPS. Since the clarification released from SOLT, I notice now that Bishop Gracida seems to have shifted somewhat from supporting Fr. Corapi to attacking SOLT for allowing the situation to develop in the first place. However, it seems to me that the stage was set by those who initially allowed Fr. Corapi to set up his independent operations. In other words, there is blame enough to go around. It is troubling that Bishop Gracida took a public stand against a man’s lawful superiors even though he admits that he has not talked with the priest for years! Now Fr. Corapi is telling his fans on Twitter to look forward to an important announcement on Thursday. Enough already! I discern a manipulation of good men behind all these tensions that is due to evil human machination and/or to the intrusion of something devilish.
Phil Lawler at CATHOLIC CULTURE succinctly tells it as it is:
Like the late Father Marcial Maciel, the disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ, John Corapi has worked for years as a celebrity priest: encouraging a cult of personality, setting his own agenda, raising large sums of money that he spent at his own discretion, and—most dangerous of all—accountable to no one. It was a formula for disaster, and now the disaster has occurred. Again.
I would beg people to separate the truths Father taught from the possible failings of the messenger. All are tempted, but the devil delights in targeting priests; while he could not seduce the high priest Christ, he often settles for corrupting those men who participate in his priesthood. Pray for priests, pray for Father Corapi and pray for “the little ones” who might despair of their faith.
I am done with this topic, but will give Father Corapi the last word:
FINANCES…”From the earliest days (more than twenty years ago) the Founder of the Society of Our Lady, Fr. James Flanagan, encouraged me to support myself and the Church as well.”
IMPROPRIETY…”I have never had any promiscuous or even inappropriate relations with her.”
INVESTIGATION…”As standard practice, my legal counsel advised me not to cooperate with the investigation until I was able to determine that the Commission’s process was fair and I had adequate rights to defend myself.”
HUSH MONEY…”I never paid anybody off to remain silent.”
RESIGNATION…”I resigned because the process used by the Church is grossly unjust, and, hence, immoral. I resigned because I had no chance from the beginning of a fair and just hearing. As I have indicated from the beginning of all this, I am not extinguished!”
CLICK HERE to read my post on this matter last month.
A good friend feels that this topic and the argumentation associated with it is not good for me. It is true that I find it very upsetting. I love the priesthood and the Church. I get defensive when they are threatened. I also worry deeply about the good of souls. It is true too that the plight of a brother priest is always felt very personally. Many of the comments, moderated and mostly not posted, are unreasoning and angry. So I am going to end it here. Orignally I posted a video here that gave Father Corapi the last word, albeit with an advertisement tagged to it. However, he has liquidated his business and removed all signs of his web presence. He is gone from sight, but maybe not from our minds and hearts. Keep him and the people he impacted in prayer.
While some conservative critics would disparage all forms of feminism, I am of the opinion that a distinction can be made between a Christian and Catholic feminism and the more radical or liberal or Marxist variety. The days are long gone when women were denied the vote and found the doors to academia and business closed to them. I think most sensible people believe in equal pay and benefits for men and women doing the same job. I would also contend that men and women should be held to the same moral standard. Of course, I would raise the bar for men instead of lowering it for women. The many sins that afflict our culture are no step forward. Further, the rights of women who become mothers should not be deemed as automatically cancelling out the rights of fathers or of the children they carry in the womb. There are also occupations that are gender specific. Men might enter the field of dance but all eyes are upon the graceful ballerina. Motherhood and fatherhood are distinct. Various occupations and vocations may share similarities but they are not the same. Women can enter religious life as nuns or sisters. Men can become monks or priests. It is the contention of Catholicism that priesthood is gender specific.
Some critics of a male-only priesthood might argue that they are not in league with the radical feminists; and yet, their basic assumptions are embraced to get to the revisionist conclusions. Freedom of choice, equal rights in all things, unencumbered self-possession and self-determination, an indeterminate sexual nature, an arrogant presumption of the will of God as identified with their own narcissistic goals, pragmatic reasoning from utility that disregards ontic questions of reality, interchangeable gender, avoidance or reinterpretation of unsupportive data, anger and belligerence– all these are elements in their opposition to the status-quo, be it regarding women’s ordination or any other topic.
“I think that a certain contemporary feminism finds its roots in the absence of true respect for woman. Revealed truth teaches us something different. Respect for woman, amazement at the mystery of womanhood, and finally the nuptial love of God Himself and of Christ, as expressed in the Redemption, are all elements that have never been completely absent in the faith and life of the Church. This can be seen in a rich tradition of customs and practices that, regrettably, is nowadays being eroded. In our civilization woman has become, before all else, an object of pleasure” (p. 217).
Do we see the irony in all this? Remove the unique significance of gender and its all important difference to our personhood and we begin to make impersonal objects of one another. The radical feminists, by their calculated destruction of structures and customs deemed as sexist, have created a situation in which the truly feminine is disfigured and the woman is knocked from the pedestal of the sacred to be profaned as but a source of transitory pleasure. Objects can be interchangeable, human persons cannot. There was a time when good women called forth what was best in men. Now that things have been reduced to mathematical equality, we are worse off than cattle. We can see the gender differentiation on the level of genitalia but refuse to admit that such distinction goes any deeper. Our technological world has, in a sense, reduced the human to identical mechanical parts. Such runs contrary to the Christian teaching that everyone is irreplaceable and precious. A woman is desired for her flesh, not for her soul. This should not be. To some extent, the same derogation of our nature can be seen in many women’s preoccupation with men’s back-sides and hairy chests. The radical feminists talk about personhood, but they have essentially redefined it. For them the person is not who you are but what you want.
These feminists of the wrong kind must displace the marriage analogy of Christ the groom to the Church his bride in both the Mass and in the way we understand ecclesial structure and dynamics. This runs contrary to revelation and tradition. If signifying Christ’s full identity, including his maleness, is not important in the Mass then gender is logically qualified as insignificant. This is the contention of moral separatists who acknowledge a role for the two genders in mutual physical “recreational” stimulation; but, who disavow that it signifies any communication of core identity. Capitulation on this issue, allowing priestesses, would be the most controversial change in Church teaching since her foundation two millennium ago. More than a new reformation, it would signify the beginning of a new faith and a new cultus.
In May of 2011, Pope Benedict XVI removed Australian Bishop William M. Morris from office for suggesting that women should be ordained priests. Not only would such ordinations go against 2,000 years of sacred tradition, guided by the protective hand of the Holy Spirit; the bishop entirely dismissed the solemn declaration of Pope John Paul II. The late Pope said as universal teacher that the Church does not have the authority to change the priesthood by opening it up to women. Indeed, the current Pope spoke about the teaching as settled and infallible. The case is closed.
POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).
Do we really think that allowing women to be ordained would be an improvement for priesthood? I suspect that numbers of interested women are greatly exaggerated. We are having trouble with shrinking orders of women religious. Further, it is interesting that many of those who are most vocal would insist also upon being married or having same-sex partners. They want to violate doctrine and change the long-standing disciplines of the Church.
Akin to Gnosticism is another heresy of the early Church called Docetism. It claims that Christ’s body only appeared to be real and therefore his suffering and death was a pretense. In Gnosticism, Christ the Redeemer is really one of the aeons (cosmic and semi-divine powers) who descend upon the human Jesus in order to reveal the saving knowledge or gnosis. Similarly, he did not really become a man and die on the cross. Both saw the material as evil. Removing the sexual requirements from sacerdotal priesthood “is a Docetism as romantically superhuman as that which engages plans for a non-institutional Church, free of the trivia of administration” (Priest and Priestess by George William Rutler, p. 79). Fr. Rutler writes:
“It places the burden of integrity on the individual’s talents rather than on the simple fact of his sexual existence, scorning the Messianic precedent which chose a specifically masculine human nature with all its limitations for the earthly representative of the High Priesthood of Christ Himself” (Ibid., pp. 79-80).
Over a decade ago, I read an article in the National Catholic Reporter about 72 lay women from the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago promoting women’s ordination. In the course of the report, Dean Hoge, a sociology professor at Catholic University noted that studies he had conducted suggested that if ordination were opened to women, only about 3,600 would take up the offer by the millennium. While I was not convinced of his figures, I had to wonder what kind of women would make up this group. It gives me cause to shudder. One student at CTU remarked, “It isn’t the Eucharistic part [I should hope not], I’m attracted to that. It’s the clericalism, the celibacy and the political system that I couldn’t stand.” Ah, so the nature of priesthood and our ecclesiology would have to be revamped before many women would embrace orders. It makes sense. Indeed, would not the ordination of women itself imply such a transformation? Yes, I think so. There would be a new priesthood for a new Church. It would also mean the end of real Christianity.
POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).
It is evident from the Epistles and the Acts of Apostles that the roots of our ordination teaching are pre-Nicene. While insufficient to remedy the break in apostolic succession that afflicted the Anglican ordinal early in England’s reformation, it is true that their priests and bishops who have shored up their orders with Old Catholic and Orthodox Bishops concelebrating their ordinations and consecrations may indeed be sharers in holy orders. When the Anglican Archbishop of London was received into the Roman Catholic Church, he was not re-ordained as is the usual practice but was conditionally ordained a priest. This exception was shown because he was able to show with some certitude his pedigree of orthodox precursors. Otherwise, the 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curiae, still holds: Anglican orders are null and void. This all aside, the point I want to make is that the exclusion of women is a long held tradition that cannot be dismissed arbitrarily. Indeed, it is a fitting example of the canon discerned by St. Vincent of Lerins about the certitude of a doctrine as a practice or belief common to the Church “everywhere, to everyone, at all times.” The Church would allow for the organic development of doctrine analogous to the growth of a human body from infancy to maturity; but, and this comes straight from John Henry Newman, this development while real must not result in the least alteration to the original significance of the doctrine involved. This cannot be said of the revisionist position in favor of Christian priestesses. The faithful Catholic must “guard the deposit” (1 Timothy 6:20), the revelation enshrined in the Scriptures and interpreted in the Church’s tradition by the Magisterium.
Proponents of women’s ordination dissent from the promulgated Catechism of the Catholic Church. This work has been given the Imprimi Potest by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger himself, head of the Congregation of the Faith, who is now Pope Benedict XVI. It is introduced by the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, by Pope John Paul II. He writes: “It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church.” He makes no qualification in declaring “it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” A couple of paragraphs later, he says it again: “This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine . . . .”
Nevertheless, by dissenting against the teaching of the male-only priesthood, critics seek to undermine the truthfulness of the entire document and the God-given authority of the Church to teach it. They even castigate the Magisterium as murderers of vocations. They make relative what should be objective truth. They reinterpret Scripture according to their own “personal” and false enlightenment and dismiss the exegetical role of the teaching Church. They ignore tradition as irrelevant or pretend that it is somehow in their favor. They do all this, and yet plead to be a good Catholics. We must be careful of dissent.
Let us look at what the catechism says about women priests:
[1577] “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination” (CIC, can. 1024). The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible (Cf. John Paul II, MD 26-27; CDF, declaration, Inter insigniores: AAS 69 [1977] 98-116).
Inter insigniores leaves no room for discussion. It says:
“. . . the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” A sentence or so later it reiterates the point: “The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women.”
There is much confusion in the argument for women’s ordination around the hackneyed use of St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. The passage in question is in reference to a baptismal formula and is not a justification for priestesses. It regards the universal offer of salvation in Christ, not the makeup of the sacrament of holy orders. Arguing that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) as a qualification for priestesses is nothing more than a cheap classical reductionism. What is the statement actually saying? The phrase, “neither male nor female” is not focused on biology or psychology, just as “nether slave nor free” is not a statement of sociology and “neither Jew nor Greek” fails to center on anthropological realities. Moving away from fundamentalism or literalism, the statement in Galatians is heavenly, even apocalyptic language. This particular unity does not emanate from a common humanity but rather from God’s election. It is similar to that for which Jesus appealed: “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me” (John 18:20-23).
This unity for which Christ prays is not yet fully realized. During our earthly pilgrimage, the Church must be sufficiently sacramental so as to perceive the current realities of sex, position, culture, etc., raising up that which is of value in each and discarding that which profanes both God and men. Fr. George Rutler writes:
Secular exploitation of sexual differences in fields which theoretically have no sexual restrictions violate the Christian mind but that is a far different matter from the divine discrimination which merely states the reality of different sexes. St. Paul’s statement about male and female eradicates the fact of maleness and femaleness no more than his statement about bond and free or Jew and Greek denies the reality of Onesimus and Philemon or the fundamentals of geography. Certainly his readers know this; that is the source of one of the great ironies of the ordinal controversy: proponents of priestesses quickly label St. Paul an anti-feminist on the grounds of his abiding awareness of the different order of men and women yet they simultaneously use his own writing in Galatians 3:28 as a proof text for the indistinguishability which he himself found so grim. Having sighted the careful line between representation and misrepresentation, these exegetes have approached it with all the temerity of Caesar at the Rubicon. (Priest and Priestess, pp. 21-23).
Maybe we should stop using the phrase, “woman priest”? It seems to me that the modern abhorrence of the word “priestess” is a telling fact. Even our unconscious psyches are uncomfortable with the possibility and this Orwellian word game is somehow an attempt to bypass our revulsion and the theological absurdity. Fr. George Rutler remarked in his Episcopalian days: “. . . and to say ‘woman priest’ is semantically as androit as saying ‘female rooster.'” Perhaps we avoid the word priestess because it tears to shreds any conception of this notion as fresh and modern? The word may even be older than “priest.” (See the book Priest and Priestess by Fr. George W. Rutler.)
The new Episcopalian priestesses are not so much one with true Catholic priests as they are with their western European and Mesopotamian forebears who rendered sybilline declamations over animal entrails.
Critics of the Catholic exclusion often quote the universality of baptism and faith in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They confuse Catholic soteriology (that salvation is available to all) with the tradition of a male-only priesthood instituted by Christ and maintained by the apostles. A favorite verse of mine is this one: “But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). Paul addresses himself in the subsequent text to some of the lesser and changeable traditions (like Mass veils), but his theological underpinnings are what constitutes the revealed truth. More exactly, he is talking about Christian anthropology and the sacrament of marriage. A woman cannot signify the groom, Christ the head. An even greater scandal erupts if such a priestess were literally married. She who is subject to her husband would then seek the submissiveness of the Church, including her husband, to her. A contradiction would emerge. Those who do not like this analogy have an argument, not with me, but with St. Paul and the Holy Spirit which inspired him.
If critics can cast aside the teachings of popes and apostles, how can they be so sure that they have the mind of Christ regarding women’s ordination?
Father Corapi made his first announcement in March 2011:
On Ash Wednesday I learned that a former employee sent a three-page letter to several bishops accusing me of everything from drug addiction to multiple sexual exploits with her and several other adult women. I have been placed on “administrative leave” as the result of this… All of the allegations in the complaint are false, and I ask you to pray for all concerned.
EWTN removed his programs from the cable network:
In EWTN’s thirty years of existence, the Network has never knowingly aired programming featuring any priest whose priestly faculties have been suspended. The Network has always responded consistently and immediately in such situations by removing such programs from the air. We are obliged to do so in obedience to the discipline of the Church. Father John has long been a friend of EWTN and many of us have worked closely with him throughout the years. He is a tremendously gifted preacher who has led many souls to Christ. We are doing exactly as he has asked and supporting him and everyone involved in the situation in the best way possible, through our prayers.
Many of us were unfamiliar with the nature of his SOLT religious community:
The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity is a community of disciples of Jesus and Mary composed of all vocations: priests, deacons, brothers, sisters and single and married laity. The Society was founded in 1958 and has been approved by Rome as a Society of Apostolic Life. Ecclesial Teams are the basis of our community life as well as the means by which our missions are staffed. A complete Ecclesial Team is composed of at least one priest, religious and lay person or married couple. At the present, the International Headquarters of Our Lady’s Society is located in the United States, in the city of Robstown, Texas under the Diocesan jurisdiction of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas. In looking forward to when The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity achieves Pontifical Status within the Church, the International Offices will be transferred at that time to Rome, Italy.
There was a clarification from the lucrative company, Santa Cruz Media, over which Fr. Corapi was identified as the CEO:
Santa Cruz Media, Inc. is the owner of all of Fr. John Corapi’s intellectual property and the DVDs, CDs, and books that flow from it. We are a secular corporation and not affiliated with the Catholic Church in any way. As such, we are not under the jurisdiction of any bishop or other official in the Catholic Church, although we have the utmost respect for Church authority.
Here is my FACEBOOK comment from March 2011:
FATHER JOE: Priests are men under authority. Fr. Corapi, himself, says that they cannot play games with their promise of obedience and others should respect this. If Father Corapi’s faculties have been removed and his ministry suspended, then EWTN was morally required to take the action they did. Hopefully the matter will be resolved and he will be restored to his place on television and radio. Having said this, the sale of media (audio, video, web and print) would also fall under “ministry.” Given the situation, Fr. Corapi could certainly require Santa Cruz Media, Inc. (an extension of his ministry) to suspend sales and distribution of his materials. I suspect that the good priest is innocent, but there is much to which we are not privy. Prayer is our proper posture at this time, not ridicule of episcopal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church.
WHERE IT STANDS NOW
ON JUNE 17, 2011 AN ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE BY FATHER CORAPI THAT HE WOULD CONTINUE MINISTRY BUT NOT AS A PRIEST IN GOOD STANDING. IT IS A VERY SAD DAY.
FATHER JOE:
(June 2011) I have not blogged about this matter until now and I am not comfortable about posting on it. This issue has gone beyond Father Corapi and could harm the very souls for whom he has confessed concern. Already on the social network sites, his fans are taking sides with him and attacking the Church. This has quickly become a very dangerous situation, another reason why cult worship of religious media personalities should be discouraged. Our faith is in Jesus and the Church, not in preachers with impressive rhetoric and militant attitudes.
This business has gone sour and Father Corapi, as much as I hate to say it, is duplicitous in saying (on one hand) that the bishops have a right to do what they are doing and then (on the other) to malign them for violating his rights and daring to impose discipline upon him. He is a priest and cannot pretend to be anything else, as with this pathetic “black sheep dog” foolishness. His failure to shut down his multimillion dollar business was an early sign that he would not obey the demand of the bishops to suspend public ministry. Now he is taking it to the next level. Faithful Catholics have no choice; in tears and anguish, we must leave Father Corapi. Pray for him but do not participate in his pretense of obedience while he is actually disobedient. True humility would have him submit and accept the Cross. His obstinacy insists that no one will tell him what to do– that was the trouble with his independence all along. More grievous than any genuine or false indiscretion with a woman, the skirting or outright violation of obedience is the greatest possible failing for any priest. Everything from his assignments to the moral life is covered in his fidelity to the Church and Christ. He is to discern God’s will in his obedience to the bishop and his superiors. Evidently, he has become a dissenter on the nature of priesthood and its obligations, as well as upon Catholic ecclesiology. While on “administrative leave,” a suspended priest can neither preach nor teach religion; his intention to do so anyway would be a movement toward the Protestant camp, no matter what the message.
REMARKS ON HIS STATEMENT
FATHER CORAPI: All things change, only God stays the same, so I have to tell you about a major change in my life. I am not going to be involved in public ministry as a priest any longer. There are certain persons in authority in the Church that want me gone, and I shall be gone. I have been guilty of many things in the course of my life, and could easily and justifiably be considered unfit to engage in public ministry as a priest.
FATHER JOE: The problem is that priesthood is not merely a job we can change or a hat we can trade for another. Even if the priest is laicized, he is configured to Christ as a priest, forever. If he cannot engage in public ministry, then he cannot do so in any fashion, even if he drops his priestly title or goes under a pseudonym as in a superhero’s secret identity. [It is rarely permitted, but sometimes a laicized priest can give religious instructions with permission of the bishop if it is generally not known that he was a priest and no scandal would result. Fr. Corapi is too well known for this exception ever to apply.] The label “Black Sheep Dog” is a literary fiction without meaning. It says nothing that would grant him an escape from Church censure. He is a suspended priest who has no faculties for preaching or publicly teaching the faith. That means he cannot do it— even on the Internet or with books or with audio/visual media. If the Church authorities want him gone, and it is uncertain who he really means, then he should pursue his canonical rights in private. He has opted not to do this. Suspensions can take a year or more to resolve. He did not last three months! That is hardly the image of a tough former Special Forces military man. (But wait, we found that this part of his biography was a fabrication. We will let that fact check go given his more serious troubles.) Of course, he may acknowledge one important grain of truth; he may indeed be “unfit to engage in public ministry as a priest.” It should be said that all priests are unworthy. The best of priests fall short. If he were sincere then he should fight for his priesthood, no matter how much time it might take to be restored to ministry or good standing. However, such must be done within the system and among the fraternity of his brother priests. He should hold his tongue about how he feels about the process and treat the bishop, his superiors and the Church with trusting respect. A priest who caricaturizes the Church as the enemy is burning his bridges. These latest remarks have ignited a fiery inferno. Fame and fortune should mean nothing to a good and humble priest. He might argue that the Church has forced his hand, but every faithful priest knows this not true. The laity may not clearly understand this situation. Our lives and obligations are very different. He may want to step away from his priesthood, but a priest he is, and that means that any public ministry without ecclesial approbation will be PROTESTANT ministry, not Catholic.
FATHER CORAPI: I did not start this process, the Bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas ordered my superiors, against their will and better judgment, to do it. He in fact threatened to release a reprehensible and libelous letter to all of the bishops if they did not suspend me.
FATHER JOE: Notice how quickly Fr. Corapi uses the word libelous. Would he resort to the civil courts to punish any in the hierarchy who would dare challenge him, his importance and his resources? He says that he loves the Church and so I am hoping that he will not. Nevertheless, are the assets of his “for profit” company fully his or do they belong to the Church? I suspect they are in his name. We might see a fight about this yet. In his own mind, he is the Church’s great defender. He is Superman, Batman and the Green Lantern all rolled up into one. His fans echo his own conviction— “Oh how will the Church survive without him?” In truth, the Church will fare perfectly well without him. But, if he decides to pursue this BLACK SHEEP DOG nonsense, it is possible that he could inflict great harm upon the Church and cost good people their salvation. As for the bishop’s actions, it confirms what I suspected, that SOLT was impotent in reigning in this isolated Lone Ranger priest who had made religion into his own personal big business. Let me be fair, he may not have started out expecting this happen. But the media can make celebrities of anyone, even religious leaders. When fans tell you that you are wonderful, their praise can be seductive and the person can become addicted to adulation. This is deadly for the minister of God. Everything we have is gift. Every priest should be the poor man– the sinner who seeks to bring God’s mercy to other sinners. Fr. Corapi did some incredible work. My fear is that everything might now be undone.
FATHER CORAPI: My canon lawyer and my civil lawyers have concluded that I cannot receive a fair and just hearing under the Church’s present process. The Church will conclude that I am not cooperating with the process because I refuse to give up all of my civil and human rights in order to hold harmless anyone who chooses to say defamatory and actionable things against me with no downside to them. The case may be on hold indefinitely, but my life cannot be.
FATHER JOE: And who are these canon and civil lawyers? Was there an appeal to the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome? No, I doubt it. My suspicion is that Fr. Corapi refused to cooperate with the process. Maybe he never understood what the Catholic priesthood was really about? His promise of obedience was not selective and he had indeed surrendered certain rights. He promised celibacy and gave up an important natural right to marry. His overall promise of obedience meant that he would speak for the Church and not for himself on matters of faith and morals. In a negative way, it also meant that he would not speak if the Church so deemed. His faculties to say Mass, to hear Confessions, to preach and to publicly teach, all fell under lawful authority. He was to function as an extension of the Church and his bishop. Now he is claiming that such a promise of obedience conflicts with his “civil and human rights.” He should reflect more intensely upon the biblical scene where Jesus washed the feet of his apostles. The first must be last. He was called to be a servant, not the Master. Demanding large audiences and tens of thousands of dollars for talks is not the way of humble priests. The Pope could give him a lesson. We call the Holy Father the “Servant of the Servants of God.” This word “servant” can be translated as SLAVE. In any case, I guess Fr. Corapi wants his own version of freedom, but he will pay a terrible price for his alienation from the true Church.
FATHER CORAPI: I shall continue, black sheep that I am, to speak; and sheep dog that I am, to guard the sheep—this time around not just in the Church, but also in the entire world. I am, indeed, not ready to be extinguished. Under the name “The Black Sheep Dog,” I shall be with you through radio broadcasts and writing.
FATHER JOE: The sheep dog has no occupation separated from the chief shepherd or bishop. A dog that runs after the sheep on its own is not a true sheep dog, but rather we use another name for that canine… we call him a wolf. If people leave the Church or attack our bishops over this scandal then I would suggest that Fr. Corapi change the name of his blog and new label to BLACK WOLF.
FATHER CORAPI: I hope you stay with us and follow us into our new domain and name of “The Black Sheep Dog.” Through writing and broadcasting we hope to continue to dispense truth and hope to a world so much in need of it.
FATHER JOE: Those who collaborate, defend and buy his products will be offering material support to a suspended priest. In other words, he will be making his sin, their own.
Dear Fr. Corapi, reconsider what you are planning to do. Speaking as a brother priest, (if I were in your shoes), before bringing spiritual harm to others and scandal to the Church, I would have preferred to “quietly lie down and die.” But in actuality, the Church is not asking you to do this. We want you to live and to offer oblations for God’s people. You are a priest and your prayers to heaven have power even if they are said from a lonely monastic cell. You do not have to shout from the housetops to be a good priest. I know my words are critical and I might sound harsh, but I am thinking both of you and of your followers. We all make mistakes. We are all sinners. Sometimes we speak out of turn. We become frustrated and afraid. Old demons try to reclaim us under new guises. Be strong! Be a man! Be a priest! Be a faithful son of the Church, no matter what the personal cost.
The complete statement by Father Corapi is available on THE BLACK SHEEP DOG site.
CALLING BLACK SHEEP DOG BACK HOME
UPDATE
Joan Frawley Desmond writes a masterful and eye-opening article for the National Catholic Register (June 19) on the Fr. John Corapi scandal. Not only his fans, but his dear friend retired Bishop Rene Gracida were apparently duped by the famous media priest. Incardinated into the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity (SOLT), Fr. Gerard Sheehan, his religious superior, revealed that the process and investigation into possible misconduct was complicated by Fr. Corapi, himself. The priest had gone ahead and filed a civil suit against the former employee who accused him of sexual misconduct.
“When she left the company, she signed a contract that she would not reveal anything that happened to her while she was at Santa Cruz Media. Fr. Corapi paid her for this. Father was suing her for a breach of contract. In canon law, there can’t be any pressure on witnesses; they have to be completely free to speak. The investigation was compromised because of the pressure on the witnesses. There were other witnesses that also had signed non-disclosure agreements. The canon lawyers were in a difficult situation, and Father does have his civil rights and he decided to follow his legal counsel, which he had a right to do. We tried to continue the investigation without speaking to the principal witnesses.”
If innocent of wrongdoing, why did Fr. Corapi pay employees to sign a non-disclosure agreement? About what were they not supposed to speak? Evidently he did not like where things were going and so he sent SOLT in writing his resignation from “active ministry and religious life.” This brought the investigation to an end. This insures that no report will be published. Fr. Sheehan noted that he sent him a letter in return asking for confirmation.
As I suspected, the society was offering him ways to save his priesthood and he decided not to do so. He refused to leave Montana and live within a SOLT community. He refused to meet or talk with his superior. He refused to live according to their rule of life and the changes approved by the Holy Father. It seems that his failure at obedience went far deeper than anyone could have imagined. He maligned a Church that was very patient and fair with him. He cast himself as the victim while orchestrating something entirely different behind the scenes. It makes me want to weep and weep and weep.
His superior stated:
“We wanted him to come back to the community, and that would have meant leaving everything he has. It would have been a drastic change for him. We will continue to move pastorally and charitably, taking steps to protect his good name.”
His autobiography, BLACK SHEEP DOG, was in the works for some time which indicates that this break from ministry as a priest was planned all along.
I mentioned earlier that this business brings into question the oversight or lack therefore over members by such societies. Why was Fr. Corapi not living in conformity with SOLT’s 1994 constitution? There is no good answer, except that the society looked the other way. Fr. Sheehan assures us that the rules will be enforced in the future:
“The founder’s arrangement with Father Corapi was established before that time, when Father Flanagan believed that every mission should take care of its own needs. Now, according to our constitution, a different way of life has been established for members. All the money we make is turned over to the society, which gives us an allowance.”
I also mentioned months ago on FACEBOOK that while his home and operations were in the Helena diocese, he had no faculties from the bishop to engage in ministry there. This shows the depth of his free reign and lack of ecclesial supervision. All the Church is insisting upon now is what should have been in place initially. Despite what Fr. Corapi says against the bishop of Corpus Christi, the official diocesan news release stated “that SOLT authorities had initiated the action to temporarily remove him from active ministry.”
I suspect that Father (Mister?) Corapi will have a spin on these new revelations, with an appropriate marketing pitch for his media products and books. This tragedy may make a cynic of me yet. But I hope not, such is also not befitting a priest.
A PRAYER FOR FR. CORAPI
I have offered Mass and prayed for Father. There is a frenzy about this subject that I did not really anticipate and which makes me uncomfortable. We really need to love him. If he has disappointed us, we need to forgive him, too. Below is a prayer I will share with you. I sometimes compose my prayers and will be saying this regularly on his behalf. God bless you all!
Dear Heavenly Father,
We want to bring to you in prayer our beloved priest, Father John Corapi. It is hard to know what is going on and our trust has been sorely tried.
He has inspired us with his example of reform and instructed us with his sound Catholic teaching. He has proclaimed the Gospel without equivocation or apology. He quickly became a rock of truth in a world filled with compromise and deception. He defended the rights of the unborn when so many were silent. While the Church was rocked with scandals involving the clergy, here was a towering figure that seemed to epitomize both real manhood and priestly courage. We listened to him on the radio and watched him on television. While a few saw him in person, most of us came to know and to love him through the modern communications media. Millions had the opportunity to encounter him, and through him, the Christ whose kingdom is breaking into the world.
We desperately wanted him to be a saint and yet he himself reminded us again and again that like all the rest of us, he was a sinner. We all fall short of the glory of God. Today, however, he faces a serious personal trial and perilous choices. Many of his friends have abandoned him. Others deride him with no regard for his priestly dignity and all the good work he accomplished in your name. Still others seek to defend him by defaming the Church he has always loved.
The facts are becoming clearer, but we do not know what is going though his heart and mind. If he is angry, please Lord— grant him the gift of a tranquil heart and the patience to endure all things for Christ Crucified. If he is fearful, please Lord— let him know that you are with him and that he need not be afraid. Many temptations face us all, but priests in particular face the worse assaults of the devil. If he has fallen, pick him up. If he remains standing, then give him the courage to embrace humility and truth in the coming storm. Even brave men sometimes need a greater share of courage. Do not allow him to run away from his high calling. He participates in the high priesthood of Christ; there is no more crucial vocation. Let him know that even if he should be reduced to poverty and have to minister alone in prayer or to the smallest congregation, that the oblations of such a priest still have infinite meaning and power.
Promises are made to be kept. Father often spoke about this in regard to the sanctity and dignity of the marriage covenant. He made promises as well— to be a servant of all by embracing a life of celibate love and of obedience to the voice of Jesus in the bishops and his superiors. Preserve him in your grace and defend him against the sins that afflict him, particularly that of pride and of despair. As long as there is the breath of life, there is hope. Let him embrace this hope and put on the mind and the heart of Christ in the Church.
When it seems that a great defender of the Church is suddenly in an adversarial relationship with her, it is easy to see that something has gone terribly wrong. It is our prayer that this beloved priest will surrender his life and his work, all that he is and all that he has done, into the loving arms of the Church over which the Blessed Mother gives the protection of her mantel of mercy. Dear Lord, we know you are not finished with him yet; but we also know that no service to you can be authentic and fruitful if there is a denial of his priestly office. Help him to see this and to know the graces that will testify to your truth and glory.
FATHER JOE: You are very angry and judgmental about Catholicism. Are you a fallen-away Catholic? Many Catholics find comfort and helpful guidance in Catholic faith and values. You are too quick to tear down and attack that for which you seem to lack authentic understanding. Sin is the sickness, not religious faith. You are no better than the people you ridicule. You are also a weak sinner who needs Jesus and his mercy.
PAUL: The Catholic Church has made so many “rules” that do not even exist in the Bible.
FATHER JOE: The Catholic Church has rules for good order, but the commandments and the ecclesial precepts find their basis in the Decalogue given to Moses and the two commandments of love from Christ. We also believe in natural law. God gave us reason to appreciate the harmony and order of his creation. Values that reflect divine positive law and natural law are not capricious.
PAUL: Since when do “men” speak for God or Christ?
FATHER JOE: As for men speaking for God, such is the witness of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. Our Lord, himself, while critical of the hypocrisy of Pharisees, admonished the Jewish people to do as they say and not as they do. Jesus establishes a new covenant people and gives the Church’s leadership something of his authority. The Church is entrusted with the Gospel and even collects the books and letters that would constitute the New Testament and the complete Christian Bible. Men in the Church have also been responsible for the translation of the Scriptures. Apart from the community, and men wise in the ways of God, you would not even know God’s Word. If men and women did not pass on the faith, you would not know Jesus or the story of salvation. The Catholic Church was preaching the Good News before there was a complete Christian bible and while the Gospels were only an oral tradition.
PAUL: Where in the Bible does it say one should confess sins to another man, say a few Hail Marys, Our Fathers (and of course put some $$$ in the box!) to be forgiven? PLEASE show me this. IT does not exist.
FATHER JOE:
Jesus, being God, knew the hearts of men. Nevertheless, sinners still needed to repent and believe. Priests have the authority to forgive sins, but few have the power to read souls or minds. That is why the confession of sins is crucial, making possible an adequate penance and counsel. The prayers or acts of penance and/or mortification show God our thankfulness for his mercy and make a certain degree of reparation for temporal punishment due to sin. There is precedent for confession in the Old Testament: Leviticus 5:5, Leviticus 26:40-42, Hosea 5:15, Job 33:27-28, Joshua 7;19, Jeremiah 3:13, and Proverbs 28:13.
Tithing or support for the Church is a Christian obligation; however, it is not normally an element of penance arising from the Sacrament of Confession. The Lord gives priests something of his authority so that they might perpetuate his ministry of reconciliation. We read in 2 Corinthians 2:10-11: “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.” St. Paul goes on to write: “And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19). Another important text is 1 John 19: “If we acknowledge [confess] our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.” There is also James 5:16: “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.” Looking at the Gospels, texts like Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 are important. Often cited is John 20:21-23: “(Jesus) said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.’”
PAUL: What good does it do me to pray to Mary? She cannot save ANYONE. Only Christ can forgive your sins. Pray to him, not some guy in a fancy box who will then give you his recommended “Penance.” How ridiculous!
FATHER JOE: Yes, only Christ can forgive sins, but the ministry of Jesus is perpetuated and mediated within the saving community of the Church. Penitents receive absolution from a priest, but the proper object of the prayers is always God. Indeed, even prayers to Mary and the other saints, while they invoke intercession and solidarity, are still directed to God. Those who have already made it to the promised shore continue to love and pray for us. The graces from the deposit of the saints can also be accessed. Nothing is lost. Christ is present and his saving work is active in his Mystical Body, the Church. Confession is a sacrament that can be conducted behind a screen or face-to-face. There is nothing ridiculous about this. Indeed, it is beautiful. God loves us and gives us all we need for spiritual perfection.
PAUL: Catholics need to read their own Bible and quit making up their own human rules!
FATHER JOE: Catholics have wonderful bibles and the Scriptures are proclaimed at and substantiate the Mass and Reconciliation. Human rules or disciplines in the Church amplify the law of God and give order to our Christian discipleship. Such is the mandate given to the apostles and their successors as our lawful shepherds.
PAUL: Please tell me where in the Bible sins are labeled as “mortal”? — MORE Catholic rubbish.
FATHER JOE: For someone who argues “sola scriptura,” you seem to be in great ignorance of biblical truths. It is sad that someone who claims to be a Christian would insult learned believers who take their faith seriously. The Bible teaches degrees to sin. All sin, even “venial” or lesser sin, is disobedience and a failure to love as we should. However, certain sins are most grave and bring upon us the sentence of death, in other words, these are “mortal” sins which kill the soul and breech our relationship with God. The Old Testament admits to degrees of sin (see Genesis 18:20). The New Testament amplifies this truth (see John 19:11). Just as our Lord could raise the dead, the absolution in the sacrament of penance can restore a contrite soul back to life. “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly” (1 John:16-17).
PAUL: Just step into our church, sit down and let us read you a few verses, then we’ll pass the basket around again for a few more of your hard earned dollars… I have been to Rome and viewed all the wealth the Catholic Church has managed to gather from “devout Catholics.”
FATHER JOE: Participation at church is more than just going through the motions. Most parishes and Catholic pastors struggle to be good stewards of the resources given us by God’s good people. We do not preach a prosperity gospel but witness in a way that brings the truth to ignorance, healing to the hurting and hope to the oppressed. The Church is a treasury of the Western world’s history and culture. But she is also the refuge of a billion people in this world and many more in the next who count Jesus Christ as both their personal and corporate Savior. The Pope intervenes annually for the poor and collections are taken the world over to cover the shortfall. Would you have us sell all our churches for secular condos and for shopping malls? Your bigotry betrays your reason.
PAUL: My wife was refused entry into the famous “Vatican” because her shoulders were not completely covered. Christ said bring ALL sinners, He has no Dress Code for his house! I found it very funny how a young girl in line ahead of us (most likely 8 years of age and obviously a virgin) was allowed in without her shoulders covered at all, yet a married woman was not! MORE Catholic B.S.!
FATHER JOE: The dress code for the Vatican and meeting the Pope is well documented. The problem was that you and your wife did not respect the Holy Father enough to make proper preparations. Comparing the status of an adult woman with a child and then making a comment about her sexual condition shows the great depth of your spiritual sickness and moral depravity. All churches have dress codes of one sort or another, the same for synagogues and mosques. Would you have churches allow people to enter with vulgar tee-shirts or naked? As for our Lord, he told a parable that you have evidently forgotten: “But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:11-14). Every Mass is a sacramental participation in the heavenly marriage banquet. Our dress and posture should show the proper respect, not simply to the Pope, but to almighty God. Tell your wife to cover up next time.
PAUL: NO ONE could ever convince me that this cult called Catholicism is true followers of Christ. The weak minded will believe ANYTHING these “men” tell them and empty their pockets if they are convinced it will get them to Heaven.
FATHER JOE: If you believed Catholicism was a cult then why would you even try to enter the Vatican? Were you up to no good? The weakness of argument and mind is yours. You throw out straw man arguments that are parroted from old anti-Catholic sources. I hear a lot of prejudice and anger speaking, but little in the way of reasoned argument. Typical of your type, you falsely characterize Catholic beliefs and then you attack what you yourself have fashioned. No one can buy his or her way into heaven. The Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. Jesus is the anointed one or Christ. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
PAUL: All people really need to do is READ THE BIBLE THEMSELVES and understand that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!
FATHER JOE: The Bible was once used in arguments for slavery. You cannot use the Bible like a moral manual. However, I will admit the there is much in the Scriptures, particularly in the message of Christ, which stresses the inherent worth and dignity of all men and women. St. Paul makes mention that in Christ there is neither free nor slave, Jew nor Gentile, male nor female… all are called to the saving grace of our baptismal faith. Man was made in the image of God. The forgiveness of sins restores our full likeness.
PAUL: Just because some guy wears a fancy robe (and a KKK hat) doesn’t make him (or her) any “holier” than anyone else on this planet. Nor does it give him (them) the divinity to make some “new heavenly rules”!
FATHER JOE: The racist KKK is also historically anti-Catholic and you are mouthing many of their old slanders against the Catholic Church. The robes do not give our shepherds their authority. It is given to them by Christ. They share in the apostolic succession that keeps us in both historical and spiritual unity with Christ. The apostles passed on their authority and we still proclaim the ancient faith. Christianity did not begin as a book religion. As I have written before, the Church was proclaiming the Gospel and baptizing new believers even before there was a New Testament. The Magisterium does NOT invent new heavenly rules. Rather, the Church passes on what she has been given. The problem is not that Catholicism added anything; rather, it is that anti-Catholic fundamentalists like you have subtracted out elements of the faith given us by Jesus Christ.
PAUL: Personally I follow the guidance delivered by The Bible, not a bunch of men and women who think they are “cleaner than the rest” because they supposedly don’t have sex (let’s not talk about the altar boy molestation that has occurred time and time again and mostly hidden or covered up by the Great Catholics!)
FATHER JOE: The scandal of abuse by clergy is indeed a terrible business. But most priests are good men who love the Lord and try to make a positive difference in the lives of the people they serve. Speaking for myself, my one great ambition is to go to heaven and I would like to take a few of my friends with me. We have different roles to play in the body of the Church. We need each other. We all need Jesus. Priests do not imagine themselves as “holier than thou.” Even the Pope regularly goes to confession. We acknowledge in the sacrament, and at the beginning of every Mass, that we are sinners in need of a redeemer. LORD, HAVE MERCY ON US. CHRIST, HAVE MERCY ON US. LORD, HAVE MERCY ON US. A priest who hears confessions and offers absolution is humbled that God would make him into an instrument of healing and mercy for others. The priest Confessor counts himself as the first among sinners. He is not perfect either. That is why all priests are to be guarded about hypocrisy and self-righteousness. As for the Bible, you speak as if I and all Catholics are ignorant about God’s Word. That is not true. Of course, we could all know it better. I think you have a long way to go before you can make a claim upon teaching biblical truth. Why do I say this? Not only do you show your lack of biblical formation again and again, you demonstrate nothing of the heart of Christ’s message. There is nothing of charity in what you say. Without charity, you have nothing. I tell you this because, even though you have upset me, I am required to forgive and share the sacrificial love of Jesus. I want you to be in good standing with the Lord. You do not seem to have any awareness that attacking the Church, which is all the Christian people and not just buildings or clerics, you attack Jesus Christ.
PAUL: Jesus said it is good if a man CAN abstain, he never said you MUST abstain to spread his word, another Catholic “invention.”
FATHER JOE: No, it is your invention. One does not have to be a celibate priest in order to spread God’s Word. The Roman Catholic Church prefers a celibate priesthood, although various Eastern rites of the Catholic Church have married clergy. Our deacons are also given Holy Orders and the vast majority of these Catholic ministers are married men. They witness marriages, perform baptisms, offer funeral services, work as chaplains and bring Holy Communion to people. They do the very things we see Protestant ministers doing and more. We also have religious brothers, sisters and members of the laity who teach the faith and proclaim the Gospel by word and witness in the larger community. Further, there are growing numbers of Catholic lay evangelists, who are married and single.
PAUL: I have also never seen anything in the Bible that said masturbation is a “Mortal Sin.” Wow! I guess this means that about 99% of all men will rot in Hell— ANOTHER Catholic rumor.
FATHER JOE: Do you have a hang up about sex, Paul? Sexual sins are serious because we are corporeal beings. Our bodies are not robotic appendages or extensions, but are intimate elements of our identity as persons. Masturbation as a sin constitutes serious matter, but all good confessors also give weight to issues like habit, passion, an erotic society and media, etc. Anything that takes away freedom necessarily affects the consent. As a priest my concern about any of the sins is not to steer people toward hell but to direct them to heaven. You may have passed over into the dark area of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. I would plead that you be careful about this. The Old Testament and the rabbinic tradition placed a great emphasis upon fertility and the blessing of posterity. Masturbation is a trespass against this good of God. Masturbation or Onanism is condemned by God (see Genesis 38:9). Complicating matters further, it is a matter of course that masturbation is inextricably connected to lust and adultery in the heart. Such is also condemned by God (see Matthew 5:28-29).
PAUL: I am sorry, but the God I believe in would rather a man touch himself then take advantage of another.
FATHER JOE: This is why I am worried about you. Men can struggle with chastity and still not take advantage of others. The lines of dichotomy that you draw are false.
PAUL: All the Catholic Church wants is MORE Money. You have to make your monthly payment to get to their heaven…
FATHER JOE: Up until a few months ago, I was driving a 1995 used car. Now I have moved up to a 2002 used car… still nine years old! I wear shoes until there are holes in them. I think I live fairly simply. Compared to the Protestant ministers in my neighborhood, I am probably the poorest man among them. Most Catholic priests would be in this category. Yes, we ask for donations, but to pay the bills. We also feed the poor and help those who are hurting. Money is raised not to buy anyone’s way into heaven but to help relieve the hell that people suffer here on earth. You have it all wrong. Your false judgment against “all” the Catholic Church is nothing less than a sin.
PAUL: I went to Catholic school for the first five years of my education. It finally reached a point where my mother could not afford the tuition. She was told by the clergy that she would go to hell because she removed my sister and I from the school… Pretty cool huh? What a bunch of sickos….
FATHER JOE: Given how you have misrepresented so much else, I have a hard time believing what you write about this anonymous priest. The poor man may have had a bad day or what you say is an exaggeration, but such a tale is hardly a good reason to turn against the Church. I was turned down for Catholic school entirely. Sister told my mother that I was “sickly and stupid,” and so I went to public schools all the way through High School. I failed first grade and the public school teacher wanted to send me away to a special school for “retarded” children. Yes, that was the word she used. Another teacher came to my rescue and helped me to stay in the school the following year. I did not give up on life or learning. Neither did I turn away from the Church. I became a priest. I am sorry that you did not have such strength of conviction or faith.
PAUL: Oh and one more thing (sorry, I forgot!). The God I believe in would rather a couple use a condom to prevent the spread of disease and an unwanted child. There are enough sick people and starving children on this planet.
FATHER JOE: Men and women are not simply animals in heat. The marital act is non-contraceptive intercourse between a husband and wife. Regardless of age and fertility, it is that TYPE OF ACT that is open to the generation of new human life. Condomistic intercourse is not the marital act. Not only is it closed to the gift of children, it also places a barrier between the spouses in terms of their mutual fidelity. The natural law is circumvented in regards to the giving and receiving between spouses. They are to surrender everything they are to the other and become one flesh… not one flesh divided by a piece of latex. This is not simply a mechanistic reservation, condomistic intercourse is an entirely different TYPE OF ACT from the marital act, an act that renews the marital covenant, a covenant elevated by Christ to a sacrament which points to his unity with his bride, the Church. If marital couples are faithful to each then there is no chance of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. As for the contraceptive intent, it is the handmaid of abortion. You display this slippery slope in your language about “an unwanted child.” No child should be unwanted. Once we start thinking like that, we become enemies of the Gospel of Life proclaimed by Jesus and the Church. If couples hate, or do not want children, then they should not get married. Couples who are not married have no right to the sex act. Our Lord prophesied during his passion about such an attitude as you display. “A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him. Jesus turned to them and said, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’ At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?’” (Luke 23:27-31).
PAUL: Sex is a wonderful experience shared between two people in love. But according the Catholic’s way of thinking you need to have a newborn at least once a year because birth control is a MORTAL SIN… How stupid is that?! They just want MORE Catholics to send them more money!
FATHER JOE: The marital act is indeed a beautiful expression of love between a husband and wife; however, not every form of sexual expression is legitimate or worthy of our humanity. But I guess you have a problem with any restrictions. Once again, though, you falsify the Catholic stance toward the propagation of the species. Natural family planning can help couples space births and to have children. As long as it is used unselfishly, such family planning has value. Artificial contraception is deemed immoral but there is no Church requirement that people reproduce like rabbits. Next, you connect the matter of sex to money… the two topics that seem to obsess you. The Church embraces millions upon millions who have little voice except that of the Church seeking justice. She does not write them off or give preference to the rich. Indeed, despite how they tax the resources of the Church, the late Pope John Paul spoke about the vast multitudes of the poor as the true treasure of the Church. The Church has a preferential option for the poor.
PAUL: I pity you all for being so brainwashed. But then again look at the other cults of the world (including the one run by Jim Jones) who have convinced weak minded individuals to follow them!
FATHER JOE: You would compare the Church to a cult where a madman murdered his followers? The Church does not brainwash people or seduce weak minds. But the enemies of the Church do precisely this, and it appears to me that you are one of their victims.
PAUL: Stand up for yourselves people and pray. God WILL listen to you. Some people do need a little guidance along the way but NEVER believe things “men” speak of. There is no need to obey rules made up by a cult intent on controlling your life. Read your Bible and you will learn what GODS will is, not some guys making up the rules as they go…. Catholicism = The Earth’s Greatest Cult (good luck with that!)
FATHER JOE: Our good Catholic people do pray, sometimes standing and sometimes on their knees. Catholics are increasingly knowledgeable of their bibles and have the wisdom of the saints, the Church fathers and theologians and biblical exegetes. We are not afraid of learning. Ours is an informed faith. These sources of Christian doctrine are far more reliable than that of one ignorant and angry anti-Catholic fundamentalist. You offer no reasons why anyone should follow you over the 2,000 year old institution established by Christ. Do you belong to a church or are you a cult of one. If Catholics read the Bible and study their faith, then the ignorance, prejudice and treachery of men like you is immediately exposed. Catholicism = Christianity, pure and simple!
The bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, died in 2004. It is not my intention to speak ill of the dead, but I still feel compelled to give a strong critique of his argument in favor of women priests. Giving the appearance of orthodoxy, he maintained the usage of “in persona Christi,” while evacuating it of authentic meaning. His claim of a shift in its understanding “since the 1940′s” is not substantiated since it was already well developed in the scholastic tradition. Our deepening appreciation of it has been a legitimate instance of the operation of the universal ordinary Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As such it takes upon itself a level of certitude, dare I say infallibility, especially in regards to its five citations in the Vatican II documents. Conciliar teachings do not have to be statistically verified. The bishop, trying to find any loophole for women priests ignored this point.
For those unfamiliar, let me summarize his views. He caricatured, and I believe falsely, the teaching as mere “impersonation,” no different from an actor pretending to be someone else in a contemporary drama. Opposed to St. Jerome’s supposedly “false translation” of the Greek (and here I will transliterate) “en prosopo Christou” (2 Corinthians 2:10) as “in persona Christi,” the bishop claimed it really meant “in the presence of Christ” or “before (the face of) Christ.” If the minister only impersonates Christ, and is not actually present in the priest, then his view would open the door to women priests.
Although these renditions of the word “prosopon” have some validity, one cannot so carelessly dismiss the Vulgate Latin Bible. It remains the official ecclesial translation. Further, the terminology “prosopon” was being stretched or advanced in meaning from its routine usage in Greek drama.
In contrast, various critics will avow that the “persona” manifested is the divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity but disavow his male-differentiated humanity. However, Christ’s identity can never be split. Thus, while Bishop Untener would actually evacuate any ontological reality of Christ’s presence at the altar, these other critics would divide and subtract from it.
Ecumenically, Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox churches concur with us, even if they might use different terminology. For Eastern Christians, the priest is considered “an icon of Christ.” It must be remembered that icons are considered more than simple images. They are venerated as somehow holding God’s presence in them. The priesthood takes this iconic identification still further. To say that a priest acts as Christ’s icon means that we can experience the undivided person of Christ in him. To make this identification even more complete, the constitutive element of a priest’s maleness may be supplemented by such accidentals as vestments and a beard.
Bishop Untener may be correct in that the Mass is a drama; but, the priest is more than an actor. Every Mass is Christ’s as the principal celebrant. Unless he is present in the person of the priest, this assertion becomes nonsense. The late bishop minimized the meaning of the “prosopon” or mask and others ignore the Greek source for this idea entirely. An actor in ancient Greek theater would hold up a “prosopon” or face to disguise his countenance. More than simply “impersonating” the character as in modern drama, the face he held allowed him to take unto himself a new, even if pseudo-real, identity. These transformations became so thorough, that many of the ancients considered acting to be a vocation.
In the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, AD, over the identity of Jesus, “prosopon” was understood as an external concrete apparition, the appearance of the “physis.” The “physis” was a set of characteristics or properties, in other words, that which made up the nature of a thing. However, even in this context, the word “prosopon” was strengthened by the term “hypostasis.” [This was because some feared what critics have done regarding the priesthood, dividing or subtracting from Christ.] This last word was closely connected with the term “persona” in the West. The word “person” signified the firm ground from out of which an existing thing took its stand and developed. [It is the person of Christ who stands and renders sacrifice in front of our altars. The priest does not pretend to be Christ. At the Sacrifice of the Mass, he is the undivided Christ.]
The bishop wrote, “In the early centuries we do not see this phrase used to describe the role of the ordained priest.” Why is this? The answer is simple. The Church comes to a further understanding of herself and of her doctrinal treasury through conflict. Christ’s identification with the minister in the liturgy was not at issue. For that matter, even when surrounded by pagan priestesses and heretical ones, the consensus of the Church was so sure that no defense of the male priesthood was thought necessary.
Through all the rhetoric, the bishop was essentially implying that the sexuality and/or body of the human being should not be a determining factor of worthiness for holy orders. Historically, there is a precedent that says otherwise. Indeed, as I have taught before, the Gnostics who copied many Christian rituals possessed a female priesthood. They also denied that Christ was really a human being. If he were not really a man, we are not redeemed. Do we really want to run this course? I think not. One minor bishop does not constitute or veto the whole Magisterium in union with the Pope.
Abusing St. Thomas’ appreciation of instrumental causality, the bishop wrote that “Christ makes use of the instrument of a priest in the sacraments in the same way that a physician makes use of a scalpel — as an instrument, although in this case, an animate instrument.” What he bypasses is that a man is not a scalpel and a priest is not any man. The nature of the instrument must be respected. Christ has so configured a man that through ordination he is capable of making the Lord present through his very person. This is the legitimate instrumentality of the priest at Mass.
The bishop’s article about the priesthood and women is reprinted in his book, THE PRACTICAL PROPHET. The post was a letter to a proponent of women’s ordination.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
PAUL: You people are very sick.
The bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, died in 2004. It is not my intention to speak ill of the dead, but I still feel compelled to give a strong critique of his argument in favor of women priests. Giving the appearance of orthodoxy, he maintained the usage of “in persona Christi,” while evacuating it of authentic meaning. His claim of a shift in its understanding “since the 1940′s” is not substantiated since it was already well developed in the scholastic tradition. Our deepening appreciation of it has been a legitimate instance of the operation of the universal ordinary Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As such it takes upon itself a level of certitude, dare I say infallibility, especially in regards to its five citations in the Vatican II documents. Conciliar teachings do not have to be statistically verified. The bishop, trying to find any loophole for women priests ignored this point.
Blogger Priest 