The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can 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.
a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?
Yes, such is the case in many states and the Bishops and the Maryland Catholic Conference lost the fight in Maryland despite an aggressive Marriage Matters campaign.
b) What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?
There is a real culture war and increased tension between conservative and liberal churches. Prince George’s is heavily Democratic and yet the voters just barely opposed the same-sex legislation. However, the high numbers in favour in other areas like Baltimore and Montgomery County carried the day for those proposing same-sex marriages. The Black churches leaned against the proposal while the liberal white churches and reformed synagogues were in favour. The Episcopal churches also largely supported the change.
c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?
That is the question right now, is it not? The Pope’s assertion about who is he to judge has fuelled speculation of a shift in attitude in the Catholic Church toward homosexuals. My late cousin (Fr. John Harvey) was the founder of COURAGE, an organization that urged homosexuals to embrace celibate love, service to others and prayer. He took a great deal of ridicule from the renegade DIGNITY group that argued for the acceptance of homosexual acts. We can urge them to go regularly to confession and Mass. But it seems to me that we cannot rubberstamp sin. Complicating the issue, homosexuals identify themselves chiefly by their orientation. Thus they reject the “hate the sin but love the sinner” scenario. They contend that if you judge “how they love” then you judge them and that this is hate speech.
d) In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?
Boston and Washington, DC shut down their adoption services. What else can we do? I fail to see how we might deliberately place children into homosexual and lesbian households. There may be no pastoral answer that suffices. Having said this, other organizations are going to make this happen. Lesbians are also going to get themselves inseminated (they often abort male children). If they come to us it seems that we should reach out to them with compassion and understanding of human weakness and the need for love. Life is messy and we may have to get our hands dirty. Some situations are going to defy correction or fixing. News stories of parochial schools firing lesbian teachers or expelling children with “two daddies or two mommies” only seems to make matters worse. But how should we proceed?
a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?
When was the last time the average Catholic heard a homily on Humanae vitae? We had a Dominican priest speak about it here at Holy Family Parish a few years ago and I got a letter of complaint and another one went to the Archdiocese. The dissenters count on silence and threaten to hold back financial support otherwise. Many priests also dissent (although they are an aging group) and one told me to my face that he assured penitents that taking the pill was responsible parenthood and not a sin. I chastised him in private and when he refused to change his errant ways I reported him to the Archdiocese. What happened? Nothing, he remained in place with a good size parish and school until he died a year ago. All most people know about the teaching is what the news media and biased family and friends tell them. Kids often stop taking catechesis in eighth grade and the more complicated topics like birth control are not age appropriate. Do our marriage preparation efforts bring it up? Humanae vitae requires a basic shared appreciation of Christian anthropology: the nature and purpose of the conjugal act, a respect for the dignity of persons, acknowledgment for the design of the Creator and his providence, and the inseparability of union and an openness to procreation. A general shallowness makes it difficult or impossible for many people to comprehend the Church’s argument. While fidelity was once procured because of a profound sense of duty and obedience; such comes across today as arbitrary and overly complicated. We cannot blindly trust in a deontology toward authority when Church leadership has been compromised and maligned. High school and young adult catechesis has to be broadened and made attractive. There is just no way to communicate a cohesive understanding of human personhood and values to children and disinterested adolescents. A grade-school catechesis does not prepare Catholic adults for responding as people of faith in the modern world.
b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?
Do we even have to ask this question? The teaching is broadly rejected. Contraception is the easy way out and now with the HHS Mandate, it is free. Ours society takes pills for everything. We are conditioned to be pill takers. NFP would demand a degree of responsibility and abstinence that some find difficult. Not only are we dealing with sexual addiction, but there is a basic disconnect between the marital act and having babies. Fertility is increasing looked upon as a disease and pregnancy is the expensive curse that results. Contraception permits irresponsibility and the treatment of bodies as toys for recreation. The dignity of the human person is undermined.
c) What natural methods are promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice the teachings of Humanae vitae?
Various forms of NFP are promoted. Critics often confuse them with the older form of Rhythm which often failed because it wrongly treated all female cycles as the same.
d) What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?
Some would throw in my face that Father So-&-So said it was okay. At one time there was some debate. However, now it is almost never mentioned. They have been told that it is all up to their consciences. Of course, the clergy who told them this neglected to mention the need for a properly formed conscience. I doubt that many would even understand the meaning of a dynamic Christian conscience. It needs to be formed in such a way that any judgment made conforms to the truth and respects the Church. The same can be said about the Eucharist. Almost everyone receives, even those in bad marriages and in serious sin.
e) What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?
The Church still generally teaches the orthodox position, but not everywhere. I know one girls’ high school where the religious sister said that she could not formally teach them about contraception but she could pass around a picture book (for educational purposes) with all the available forms of birth control imaged. Civic education is at least more honest, even if more hostile to the faith. Not only is artificial contraception taught, but condoms and similar services are rendered to students. Indeed, my public high school (Suitland, MD) regularly had the school nurse walking kids down to the local abortion clinic during our one hour lunch break. There is also disagreement on other topics like homosexuality and what constitutes tolerance.
f) How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?
Such can only be promoted if Catholics themselves are willing to be a real sign of contradiction. I know one couple with five or six children who are even harassed by parents and siblings for having “too many children.” They argue the economic issue and a lifestyle they are sacrificing. They speak about the environment and accuse them of being selfish for placing such an increased burden upon an already crowded world. Instead of converting the world, Catholics are increasingly trying to live traditional values within a self-imposed ghetto of like-minded “home-schooling” friends. Meanwhile, pressure is building to force them and others to conform to the contemporary hedonism. Benefits are being stripped from those who refuse to attend traditional schools. This has often landed families and home-schooling organizations in the courts. Some jurisdictions have attempted to outlaw home-schooling or to interfere with the curriculum. Is there a way to encourage larger and more faithful families without resorting to an isolation that might later make us more vulnerable to a hostile society? It seems to me that proper formation must come along with an aggressive evangelization. The Catholic/Christian message must be given its place in the public forum. That would also include the usage of all the modern technological ways that people communicate, today.
8. The Relationship between the Family and the Person
a) Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?
While Catholic teachings are often reduced to negativity or what couples cannot do, the Church actually speaks to the dignity of persons and our calling as disciples:
“Finally, let the spouses themselves, made to the image of the living God and enjoying the authentic dignity of persons, be joined to one another in equal affection, harmony of mind and the work of mutual sanctification. Thus, following Christ who is the principle of life, by the sacrifices and joys of their vocation and through their faithful love, married people can become witnesses of the mystery of love which the Lord revealed to the world by His dying and His rising up to life again” (GS 52).
While the institution of marriage and family life has weathered many social changes; there are still wonderful and moving examples of living out our discipleship in the modern world. Our people do not deal well with disconnected dogmatism and lack the jargon for theological discourse. What they need are inspiring stories where people of faith witness the Gospel. At the same time we must be wary that there are social and political forces around us that are neither sympathetic to either divine-positive or natural law nor desirous of real dialogue or collaboration with the Church. They would force our hands and redefine for us both faith and family. The task before us is how we might effectively (and not in a belligerent manner) promote the sanctity of life, exclusive heterosexual marriage and the importance of permanence in regard to promises. Again, I would recommend testimonies where we see exemplified mutual respect and unconditional love.
b) What critical situations in the family today can obstruct a person’s encounter with Christ?
The situations are numerous but would include: lack of prayer or knowing how to pray; absence from the Sunday observance; extended 6 to 7 day work weeks, even Sunday; poor formation and general religious ignorance; negative influences which overwhelm Church formation; the substitution of technology for immediate human and family contact; a hostile media; lacklustre sermons and unhappy or disinterested priests, etc.
c) To what extent do the many crisis of faith which people can experience affect family life?
The critical situations are epidemic. Father Peyton, “the Rosary priest,” always insisted that “the family that prays together stays together.” Families need to be the “little Church” where people learn about Jesus, say their prayers and participate weekly at Mass together. Most families today are lapsed from the Sunday Mass. Parents are not reading bible stories or the tales of the saints to their children. The television becomes the new tabernacle where minds and hearts are directed away from the Lord. Preaching is never heard but thousands upon thousands of secular messages flood the senses in programing and commercials. Computers and the internet is another challenge. Hours are spent with the new media but only a few seconds or no time at all is given to prayer or in quality family life. Adding to the challenge is a general religious ignorance. The new evangelization has already focused on this concern but too many of our people have yet to be reached. Do our people really have a personal and corporate relationship with Jesus Christ? Do husbands see themselves as intimately connected to Christ as the priests of their homes? Do wives view themselves in light of the mystery of Mary and the Church? Do they see the child as a great gift and as a reflection of the Christ Child? We have our work cut out for us.
A&E says it is a supporter of the LGBT community and will not tolerate a negative view about homosexuality. Because of this, Phil Robertson is no longer welcome on the show “Duck Dynasty” and has been cast out from his television family. But what the network is really saying is that upon this issue there can be no freedom of speech and that while gays are welcome, traditional Christians are NOT.
We should not go out of our way to be mean-spirited or hateful; but the issue here is with inspired Scripture and Christianity. The faith and God’s Word might challenge us on many subjects. We might personally have hoped that Scripture or Church teaching were different on this or that subject. But the creature cannot dictate to the Creator what should or should not be.
What the article should have been labeled is this: “St. Paul Banned from A&E for His Homophobic Remarks!” Or, to take it one step forward,
“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson has been suspended from the A&E reality series, following anti-gay remarks he made in an interview with GQ magazine.
Robertson caused controversy with his comments, in which he grouped gays with “drunks” and “terrorists,” and said that they won’t “inherit the kingdom of God.”
Asked what he considered sinful, Robertson told the magazine, “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he said in the interview. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
New American Bible (Catholic Translation):
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Romans 1:26-27
“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
1 Timothy 1:8-11
“We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Medallion from 1787 Wedgwood Anti-slavery Campaign
We often think that dissent from the Holy See and the teaching Church is a new phenomenon. However, just as the land of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” silences any reference to God in her schools and promotes the mass murder of the unborn in the womb, so too did our land, and even her Catholic citizens, dissent from papal admonitions against slavery. Catholic churchmen held large parcels of land and like their Protestant fellows, maintained the institution of slavery. The Maryland colony first founded as a haven for Catholics would later facilitate in Baltimore Harbor a central commercial trade in slaves. People were bartered as nothing more than animals or property. Personhood was denied. Human rights were trampled upon. The rights of landowners and the “choice” of European stock immigrants were made preferential over the needs and wants of people kidnapped from the African shores.
Slavery as practiced by the Jews or later by Christians in the ancient world did not compare to it. Slaves were taken from conquered peoples and indentured servants would be used well into the colonial period of America. After a period of service, and even restitution, such slaves were freed. However, we are the ones (European colonialism) who invented perpetual racial slavery– a foul business that could be passed on from generation to generation. Families could be separated. Torture and death could be implemented without any care or worry about censure. Great Britain would renounce slavery many years prior to the Civil War (ended 1865) when the issue would be forced in the United States. Here is the irony. If the Revolutionary War had gone the other way, blacks would have known freedom many generations earlier.
1778 – Slavery outlawed in Scotland.
1807 – British slave trade outlawed.
1833 – All British slaves freed.
Reserving ourselves to the Catholic community, it must be admitted that Catholics often catechized and had their slaves baptized. However, the churches would be segregated and later their schools. It is interesting that Cardinal O’Boyle in Washington, DC would order the desegregation of parochial schools in the 1950′s prior to similar efforts by the federal government. But, past injustice must not be excused because of later enlightenment.
Today many of our people and liberal Catholic theologians and bishops argue for abortion, artificial contraception and active homosexuality. They are the spiritual heirs to the Catholic dissenters on the matter of slavery.
Pope Eugene IV ordered that black slaves be freed in the Canary Islands back in 1435. Columbus was not even born yet! He demanded that “these peoples are to be totally and perpetually free” (Sicut Dudum). Slaveholders who refused the order were excommunicated.
Indians from the New World would be brought to the Pope with the absurd question as to whether or not they were human beings. It was hoped that if the Holy Father deemed them subhuman or animals, that this would legitimate the slave trade and the confiscation of their lands.
Pope Paul III (1537) condemned slavery in the New World, saying, “The Indians and all other peoples … who shall hereafter come to the attention of Christians … are not to be deprived of their liberty and their possessions” (Sublimis Deus). While in regard to the mistreatment of Native Americans, this condemnation of slavery was absolute. Slavers were rebuked as minions of the devil and rationalizations for slavery denounced as without any value. Pastorale Officium imposed automatic excommunication for any who tried to enslave the Indians or take their possessions.
The Holy Office of the Inquisition responded to a question on March 20, 1686 about the practice of enslaving innocent blacks. The Church rejected such actions and argued that they had to be freed and restitution made for the injustice against them.
The later popes spoke with one voice. Pope Gregory XVI (1839) stipulated that no one should “dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or enslave Indians, Blacks, or other such peoples” (In Supremo). He decried the traders for their “sordid gain” and the slave trade as an “inhuman traffic.” Even the defending of such slave trade was ordered forbidden.
Nevertheless, the Catholic bishops met in Baltimore in 1840 and contended that the Pope was only condemning the slave trade, not domestic slavery in the U.S. Is there a similarity between the position of the bishops (for which Bishop John England was a major spokesman) in 1840 and the position of certain Churchmen today in excusing U.S. military intervention around the world or pampering pro-abortion Catholic politicians here at home?
Toward the end of the nineteen century, Pope Leo XIII, the great pope who wrote about the dignity and rights of workers, also deplored the remnants of slavery in Africa and parts of South America.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (a Catholic and former seminarian) argues from natural law that the situation of slavery in America and abortion today are analogous– both strip human beings of personhood, liberty and life.
Where is the prophetic voice? What will future generations, if a culture of life should supplant one of death, think of this generation and her leaders– civil and religious?
This topic is revisited in many ways. It would also regard how we treat the immigrants. Some would invite them to work here but deprive them of the benefits given our citizens. The rise of labor unions and Catholic social teaching responded to the needs and rights of American laborers. Further, what about the sweat shops where workers are exploited so that we might buy cheaper goods? Many of the identical concerns attached to slavery are encountered here.
I would direct readers to Fr. Joel Panzer’s excellent book, The Popes and Slavery. Those who would fault the Church on this question would have to further impugn the apostles and Christ. However, Christianity, while it did not eradicate this social institution, did create a new mindset in its regard. One had to share the faith with servants and treat them in a manner that would recognize them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. There are numerous documents from Popes and churchmen, and even in the journal of the much maligned Christopher Columbus, that spoke of a temporary bondage so that civilization and faith might be shared with the pagans. This is not to make excuses for what we know today as repugnant; but the Church and faith is given to us in human history and culture, not purely as something from outside. Those well-versed in historiography would appreciate what I am trying to say. The Bible and the Church were not privy to an immediate, complete and definitive Christian Anthropology. The truth required time and reflection.
It is untrue that the Church was silent on the evils of certain forms of slavery until after the Civil War. As I said before, American “chattel” or “traditional” slavery would not pass the moral litmus test of the Church. However, there were other forms of servitude. Our country also saw the employment of indentured servants. After the debt was paid or the contract satisfied, the servant was given his freedom. Such would be a form of “slavery,” would find a parallel with prison chain gangs and prisoners of war.
Slavery under pagan Roman law was brutal and stripped the person of basic rights. While Christianity did not eradicate the institution, believers were rightfully conflicted and challenged as to how the institution might be maintained. The treatment of individual slaves necessarily changed and the seed which was the spirit of the Gospel would work toward its eventual abolition. All men were reckoned children of God and brothers and sisters to one another, regardless of social standing or class. Given St. Paul’s command that slaves should obey their masters, it was argued by many authorities that certain forms of slavery or servitude were in accordance with natural law. Distinctions were made about voluntary and involuntary servitude. Immoral acts could not be required of anyone, even a slave. Temporary versus perpetual slavery was debated and delineated. Chattel slavery was condemned for treating the human being as an animal and not respecting personhood. The master was also morally obligated. He had to clothe, shelter, and feed the slave. He had to give him a Christian upbringing. The servant could not be tortured, killed or given inhuman working conditions. The master could not separate families. I am not saying that everyone followed the rules; but there were rules. Indeed, given that the rules for Christians were so often broken, later moralists rejected the whole notion of slavery as justifiable, either with natural law or with the spirit of the Gospel. Slavery had to be abolished if people were to have genuine freedom and a sense of self-respect.
Here is a valuable lesson for parents. Billy needs prayers for strength and courage. Miley needs prayers that she might come to repentance and healing. Bad music is not made good by a young woman selling and cheapening herself. I think his fears and regrets are well-founded.
“This administration does not want a strong Catholic Church, nor a strong relationship with it, as it sees the Church as an obstacle to its liberal social agenda,” Jim Nicholson, former U.S. Vatican Ambassador said.
Justice Richard Bosson wrote: “Now [the Huguenins] are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”
I have heard doctors say that they may have to turn in their licenses to practice if they must prescribe abortifacients and do referrals for immoral treatments. There was a nurse at J. Hopkins some years back who forfeited her job for refusal to assist at abortion procedures. Everything from gay rights to abortion seems to trump religious liberty these days.
I think it is noble that these young children should want to help make a difference against Muscular Dystrophy; but I really, really hate these “youngest persons ever” contests that put innocent lives at risk.
Lee Thompson Young “Jett Jackson” purportedly took his life. This is terribly sad. He was a wonderful actor with much promise. His Disney show was entertaining and wholesome. This is hard to believe. Rest in Peace.
I know of two similar stories where false allegations were made against priests. The accusers later came forward and admitted they had lied. But the damage was already done. One priest was told that he could never have any association with children. The other despaired and left the priesthood. There is a lot of intimidation in such matters. We want to protect children, but the truth and possible innocence should matter, too.
Third gender option? Someone should call God up and give him the breaking news. How do we teach Genesis now? Should we make the snake into the third gender?
They should simply note the gender as currently “indeterminate” until the testing results come back. My concern is that this is not really medically driven, but a blind for a moral agenda. The excuse of a few misfortunates will be used as a foot in the door for the kind of transgendered nonsense as we recently witnessed in California. It will not be a matter of errant genitalia but people simply saying they feel male or female while they live in bodies of the opposing sex. The Church would side with the DNA and debate about those in the cracks.
Huh? They built a 47 story building and forgot to put in elevators! This reminds me of a giant office building put up about ten or more years ago. It was beautiful, except for one thing… not a single bathroom in the whole structure! Ah, architects and their mistakes!
I can see it now, Johnny who is 6 foot 5 inches and shaves will claim to be transgendered and be allowed to hang out in the girls’ bathroom and sign up for girl’s wrestling… you watch! He can already join the Girl Scouts!
“This radical bill warps the gender expectations of children by forcing all California public schools to permit biological boys in girls restrooms, showers, clubs and on girls sports teams and biological girls in boys restrooms, showers, clubs and sports teams. This is insanity,” says Randy Thomasson of savecalifornia.com.
Since progressives love quotas, I can imagine that next the NFL will be told they must allow a certain percentage of women and transgendered persons on football teams… not to mention the Cheerleader squads. If we are going to do this to kids, what about adults? What laws will be made to compel enforcement? It is said that a decadent culture eventually realizes every possible absurdity.
Statement of Archdiocese of Washington in Response to the Finalization of the HHS Mandate
June 28, 2013 – After almost two years and over 400,000 public comments, the government today finalized the HHS mandate. We have begun to review the 110-page final rule to determine whether or not it addresses our longstanding concerns. Our review and analysis of the complex rule should help us answer important questions concerning who determines which institutions are religious and, therefore, exempt, who is forced to have this coverage, and who must provide it. The new regulations are being closely studied and a more comprehensive statement will follow at a later date.
Timothy Cardinal Dolan: “Although the Conference has not completed its analysis of the final rule, some basic elements of the final rule have already come into focus.” He said the U.S. Conference of Bishops “has not discovered any new change that eliminates the need to continue defending our rights in Congress and the courts.” He argues that the HH Mandate still threatens the Church’s ability “to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.”
A FEW PERSONAL COMMENTS
We are still waiting anxiously for the response of the U.S. Bishops to the latest accommodations in the HHS Mandate from the Obama administration. The deadline of August is rapidly coming upon us and what happens next could be devastating to our hospitals, schools and charity works. It troubles me that the Catholic Health Association acts unilaterally without regard to the decisions of the USCCB. The latest version of the mandate exemption is being studied by our shepherds and yet the CHA has already come out in support of the measure. This is not new given that they supported it even when the bishops did not a year ago. I am just a poor priest, but my reading of the mandate makes me think that this latest revision is merely another round of the shell game we suffered before. There is still nothing on the table for commercial operations that have a mission paralleling the Church’s. Individual Catholics and those having businesses must participate. There is the plight of notable Catholic organizations like EWTN and the Knights of Columbus. The administration staunchly insists that employees MUST have free birth control pills and coverage for abortifacients and sterilization. When it comes to the question as to who will pay, the government is creative but consistent: whoever pays, it will NEVER be the person who wants sex but not pregnancy. The administration will officially redefine the meaning of the marital act, bloodying the hands of all with the sacrifice of innocent children. Saying that we will not have “to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage” is a legal fiction.
Distinctions are being made that are somewhat hard to follow. First, there is FULL EXEMPTION from the contraceptive mandate. This is in regard to Internal Revenue Code, Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii), which “refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” Second, there is the NON-EXEMPTION in reference to non-profit faith-based groups not directly affiliated with the Church, such as certain hospitals, schools and charities. These groups are being offered an “accommodation.” Third, there is NON-EXEMPTION with no accommodation. This would include large apologetic efforts, television, radio stations, and even small operations like a privately own Catholic gift shop. This group would be treated as any secular operation and would have to fully comply with the mandate.
It is thrown into the faces of the bishops that most Catholic women have used or are using artificial contraception. In other words, the administration is saying that Catholic women are more in sync with President Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius than with their bishops. How can the bishops then speak on their behalf? The bishops counter that even if all lay Catholics dissented, they would still be obliged to uphold Christian faith and morals. The Affordable Care Act will deliver contraceptive services, including those prescribed by a medical provider, “without charging cost sharing, like a co-pay, co-insurance, or a deductible.” Organizations like Planned Parenthood must view this as the ultimate anti-Christmas; instead of a special birth, they will celebrate the avoidance of birth with a fortune in free-bees. Of course, nothing is really free. Someone always pays. Already the agenda of the HHS on behalf of so-called reproductive or preventative services, as well as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered health issues, is costing the American tax-payer billions of dollars. The 2013 HHS budget is $80.1 billion!
The HHS has not budged an inch. It is dedicated to the promulgation of free contraceptive services without cost-sharing while posturing that concessions have been made to non-profit religious organizations. But saying it does not make entirely it so. Even if it were completely true and reserved to non-profits, it would demand that those who operate for-profit religious operations must forfeit their religious liberty and rights of conscience. That is a dangerous and despicable double or even triple-standard. Churches are fully exempt, other non-profit religious organizations have an accommodation and for-profit companies (even religious ones) have no protection at all. The Church should speak out for her rights and for those of others, both organizations and individuals. Concessions from tyrants when others suffer, as we have seen in Latin and Central America, can taint the witness of the Church and make us bedfellows with the oppressor.
In any case, reserving ourselves to religious non-profits, we are told that churches that object to contraceptive coverage on religious grounds would “not have to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage for their employees or students.” This sounds good. Similarly, we are told that the definition of a religious employer no longer insists upon the following details: (1) Have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) Primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and (3) Primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets. This seems to answer many of the concerns of Cardinal Dolan and Wuerl. But wait a minute, then are the contraceptive services still available and who pays? Is this administration really going to sit back and allow a large number of Church employees to go without contraceptive coverage? I suspect that soon after the mandate takes effect, select people who work for the Church in various capacities will come forward in a staged manner to demand the “same rights” that are given other Americans. The convoluted and unclear language will be exploited and the Church will be further painted as anti-woman and anti-choice.
When speaking about non-exempt non-profit religious organizations, we are told: “Under an accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, separate payments for contraceptive services are available for women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization.” Who makes these separate payments? Is it the insurance carrier itself? These self-certified groups must notify the health insurance issuer and these plans “must then provide separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. As explained in the final rules, issuers will find that providing such payments is cost-neutral.” Cost neutral, are they serious? If such were really the case then we could have all insurance carriers supply contraceptives with no business, government and employee co-pay. But it is not true. Insurance companies are already starting to complain. In any case, some religious non-profits are self-insured. This issue remains unsettled. What insurance carrier is going to come forward and just take upon itself the financial burden of contraceptives without other more traditional coverage and money from health plans? It makes absolutely no business sense!
Money from the religious employer and payments from the employees fund the various health insurance plans. It goes into a single pot. There is a string of probable culpability: money is passed from the Church employer (matched by the employee) to the insurance carrier to the supplier of the offensive services. I suspect that churchmen are arguing about the question of remote culpability. However, this still seems very immediate to me. Even if the funds come only from the employee’s matching contribution— that money originated with the salary/benefits of the employer. Does government expect insurance carriers to come forward and to offer such services without payment or contract selection from the non-profit religious organization? I doubt that will happen. Compliance is literally getting someone else to do the dirty work for us. Cardinal Dolan sees the problem when he states that the revision “seems intended to strengthen the claim that objectionable items will not ultimately be paid for by the employer’s premium dollars,” and yet it remains “unclear whether the proposal succeeds in identifying a source of funds that is genuinely separate from the objecting employer, and if so, whether it is workable to draw from that separate source.” If there is only one plan, then nothing has changed: the religious employer will be funding abortion inducing drugs and contraception. Groups that think this is acceptable are guilty of muddled thinking. Segregating the funds in the books is merely an accounting trick. The moral problem remains.
Self-insured operations will have a “third party administrator” to “provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for the women in the health plan of the organization, at no cost to the women or to the organization. The costs of such payments can be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees paid by a health insurance issuer with which the third party administration has an arrangement.” Okay, we are back to the days of “voodoo economics.” It is argued that no reimbursement is necessary because the decreased pregnancy and birthing expenses will offset the benefits from contraception. Contraceptives may be cheap and yet when that gal from Georgetown paraded her fake $300 plus dollars a month bill for contraception, the administration was cheerleading how expensive it was! They want it both ways and I doubt “for-profit” insurance companies are going to give away anything for free. The money will be moved around, but someone else is going to pay for it. It might be called “administrative fees” or some other euphemism, but it will still be money trading hands for immoral services. Back in 2012, a national survey of pharmacists found that most thought this idea was ridiculous and would not work. The government is going to take fees (a tax) from the insurance issuer which it will return to pay for the contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. They are going to pay them with their own money! Congratulations to the Obama administration, it has invented the perpetual motion machine! But wait a minute, it never worked before, why will it work now? Making payments to one insurance carrier and pretending that magical money will come down from another to pay for the objectionable coverage is ridiculous. It is utterly detached from reality.
Further, who pays the third party administrator who acquires outside coverage? Does that not make him or her part of the religious operation? Is this person not operating for the religious entity or in the Church’s name? The problem of self-insured entities is not cleanly resolved by the change in the mandate. If the insurance agent pays out, even if selected by a third party, is the religious employer still guilty of enabling immoral services?
While not necessarily under the direct supervision of a bishop or religious order, the non-exempt non-profit organizations are an integral element of the Church. The formal dedication of a “third party” administrator to handle the claims for contraception is still a bad solution. It is like someone hiring a hit man and saying, “Take care of the problem but spare me the details. If you are caught, I will deny even knowing you.” We would be hiring someone to sin on our behalf, to maintain clean consciences.
The Church cannot preach and teach one message from the pulpit and in our schools and then do the opposite on such an important matter. Such hypocrisy would bring down any such house of cards. I suspect that some in the government administration precisely want this to come about. They have tried one tactic and now here is another. Throughout there has been one common thread: the redefinition of the Church. The administration wants to redefine the Church as something akin to HHS itself. It wants to compromise our voice and moral witness, converting us to the cause of a secular humanistic modernity. Already, the administration is counting on the fact that most Catholics currently regard the Church as outdated and out-of-touch. This is a test after many years of moral and political passivity.
Speaking about the multiple standards of full exemption, an accommodation and no protection at all, Cardinal Dolan said that the bishops “are concerned as pastors with the freedom of the Church as a whole – not just for the full range of its institutional forms, but also for the faithful in their daily lives – to carry out the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ.” We are still dealing with the very definition of what constitutes the Church. The Church is not merely a house of worship or our hospitals, schools and affiliated charities. Most of the Church consists of the laity. They are the main ones who seek to evangelize and live out their Christian discipleship in the world. The Pharisees in Christ’s time took for granted that they could satisfy the demands of the Law while the average believer because of the demands of the state and his need for bread could not. Bishops and priests would share the same posture if they preached something that they knew that the government would not allow our Catholic “business” men and women to live out. The laity are also part of the Church, and the largest part at that.
The administration will not allow employees to opt-out of the program. The CHA does not seem to understand this fact. Maybe they do not want to admit it? However, even if such were permitted, it bypasses an important objection, that such a “reproductive choice” is offensive in itself and we do not want it covered for any employee, the spouse or teenaged children. You can say that you “opt-out” but can change your mind at any time. There is one plan and it still includes the offensive services. This opens up several frightful possibilities. Even if the employee is a faithful Catholic, his or her family covered by the family plan remains eligible for the immoral services. With or without parental consent, the employee’s daughters could get free abortion pills or get sterilized under the new plan. I suspect schools will now be able to pass the condom costs, with the addition of birth control pills, to the insurance providers of parents or guardians.
Everything about this provision in the mandate speaks to our hedonistic culture of death. If we really cared about women and families, the emphasis would be upon prenatal care and helping parents with the rising costs of child delivery and health. But it is deemed cheaper to kill children in the womb. Ours is a world that worships the barren womb and medicates against the child as if the baby were a disease. The administration would have people mutilate themselves and take poison to murder the unborn. Instead of rewarding sacrifice and genuine responsibility, we enable selfishness and moral degeneracy.
There has been much talk about the rights and choices of women under the HHS Mandate. Less discussed is the fact that it covers men as well. Male contraceptives are not as readily available, given trust issues, but the word is that more are coming. Further, there is the issue of men having vasectomies. This whole topic just gets more complicated and serious with scrutiny.
The only really good solution would be for the Obama administration to scrap the provision for what they call “preventative” services. If people wanted they could shop around and get coverage in private plans; I suppose the government could subsidize these. Unfortunately, that would mean that tax dollars would continue to be used for offensive services. As soon as morality clauses in religious-based contracts were enforced with firings over revealed abortifacient use or involvement in condom campaigns, I am sure we would be back in the courts. While we do not and cannot police the lives of people who work for us; nevertheless, they parade their sins on Facebook. Returning to the matter at hand, real exemption means that the bishops and Church organizations should have no involvement whatsoever with insurance bookkeeping gimmicks or third party administrators. But the government has a decadent culture on its side and will not bend. Strangely, even some religious people who disagree with the Church on contraception also feel that this is an important religious liberty battle. I have heard the elderly complain that there is not enough money for their life-saving prescriptions; they wonder, how then can the government find money to give compromised women free birth control pills! They cannot believe it. Admittedly, it is quite bizarre. The administration does not even want co-pay with the delivered contraceptives and abortifacients, something one must still do for blood pressure and heart medicine. This illustrates the moral sickness and sex-on-the-brain attitude of the HHS and this administration.
I regularly follow the wisdom on Msgr. Charlie Pope’s blog for the Archdiocese of Washington. Recently, he posted on the following question: “In the wake of the Supreme Court decisions of this week, are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?” A number of Catholic voices are arguing that we should disengage ourselves both with the word “marriage” and from allowing clergy to function as civil magistrates in witnessing them for the state. Certainly I am sympathetic with what they hope to accomplish. However, I am already on the record, from past discussions, as opposed to such a retreat. Both sides can play word-games. Towards the end, he poses a second question, “Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil ‘marriage’ licenses?” Again, I appreciate the underlying reasoning; we want to avoid guilt by association and giving apparent approbation. My fear is that any such move would be contrary to a well-ordered or structured society (which is a good in itself). It would also constitute a retreat that opponents in the public forum would exploit. It seems to me that our laity would bear the blunt of the suffering and challenge that would come from such a move.
I am not blind to the dire crisis we face. It is true that marriage as an institution has been largely redefined by our society. The movement on behalf of same-sex unions is a case in point; of course, if left unchecked it will not stop there. Next we will see the return of polygamy. Despite the many scandals faced by the Church, there are even depraved people pushing for pedophilia and pederasty. There is already a bizarre effort in Australia for a man to marry his pet goat, the degradation of bestiality. The U.S. bishops reminded us in their failed initiative that marriage is in trouble. While I am hesitant to criticize our holy shepherds; the fact is that marriage has been in trouble for some time now and we were largely silent. Contraception nullifies the consummation of the marital act. Millions of abortions seek to erase through murder the fruit of marital love. No-fault divorce allows for quick separations and remarriages. Prenuptial Agreements insert doubt against the vows and a lack of trust from the very beginning, thus making those marriages null-and–void. Couples fornicate and cohabitate, essentially saying that you do not have to be married to have sex. Well, when you separate sex and marriage, you also set the stage for infidelity and adultery. Once sex is disconnected from marriage it is very hard to reattach it with any kind of necessity. Our society is saturated by an erotic and pornographic media that destroys courtship and sexualizes relationships. This dilemma is so pervasive that the inner person has lost any sense of propriety or decency. Viagra gives the old stamina to neglect their coming judgment and condoms give the young license under the illusion of protection. Wedding dresses that once expressed modesty and femininity are increasing replaced with skimpy gowns akin to those on television dance contests. Ours is the generation where all rights, even the right to life, are supplanted by the emerging and absolute right to have sex with anyone regardless of promises and unions. The children are caught up in the middle of this whirlwind. This is so much so that we even dress our little girls like the prostitutes that walk the street.
Much Ado about a Word
Msgr. Pope makes the accurate observation that the Church and society-at-large mean very different things by the word, “marriage.” Of course, this is also the situation with many other terms as well. While language is fluid and hard to control; it can certainly be manipulated. Look at the word GAY. This expression for joy or happiness has become the source for giggling when used in old songs. It has now been exclusively usurped by the homosexual community. Another word in peril is RELATIONSHIP. When we hear teens or young adults use it these days, they generally mean a sexual friendship with a certain degree of exclusivity. The word that most troubles and saddens me today is LOVE. What precisely does it mean anymore? We do not want to cast it off and so the dictionary definition gets longer and longer. Look at how we use it. “I love my car. I love my dog. I love my job. I love my house. I love donuts. I love strippers. I love my wife. I love my children. I love God.” Then we have expressions like, “Let’s make love,” a euphemism for sex. We give it so many meanings that the word begins to mean nothing.
What does the word MARRIAGE mean? Is it just a civil contract to make having sex easier or more convenient? If that is all it is, it is no wonder that couples are cohabitating without it. Some states have argued for different types of marriage contracts, one more easily dissolved than the other. There was even an effort to impose marriage licenses with term limits. If after five years, if the spouses were unhappy, they could opt not to renew. The marriages would then automatically expire. The divorce epidemic, something which Protestant churches pamper by their failure to enforce Christ’s command in Matthew against divorce, has given us what is essentially serial or progressive polygamy, one spouse after another. Proponents of “open” marriages suggest that couples should still be able to have sex with others outside their bond. I know one instance where a man lives with both his wife and his mistress in the same house. The girls share him. Largely gone is the Catholic-Christian equation that marriage is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman who are called to be faithful to each other until the death of one of the spouses. Marriages are rightly directed toward the good of the spouses and the generation of new human beings, children. Stripping marriage of its propagative element is to make marriage wholly something else. Even infertile couples must express their union in that act which by nature is directed to the generation of new human life. That is why something like condomistic intercourse is intrinsically evil, even in marriage, yes, even among older infertile couples. Too many couples feign the marital act and live in relationships that are not true marriages. The large cases of annulments are cases in point. People can share their bodies like cats and dogs but they are ignorant of the true parameters of marital love and union. Although a natural right, they have made themselves ill-disposed to the sacrament. Required six-month waiting periods and marriage preparation are attempts to remedy the dark situation. However, couples frequently go through the motions and tell the moderators and clergy what they want to hear. I recall one priest praising a couple he was working with for doing all the right things before marriage. On the way out one evening, I overheard the prospective groom tell his girl, “What a jerk!” Later I found out from parishioners that they had been cohabitating the whole time and only went to the priest’s Masses once-in-a-while to fool him about their religiosity. They spent a fortune on the wedding and we never saw them again. I heard a few years later they divorced because “they grew apart.” When Catholics marry outside the Church, in the eyes of God they do not get married at all. However, Catholics who marry in the Church might also start their unions with deception. Planting lies today often leads to weeds tomorrow.
I will echo Msgr. Pope in giving the definition of MARRIAGE from the universal catechism:
[CCC 1601] The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
What are we to do when the definition given to marriage in no way parallel’s the understanding of the Church?
Msgr. Pope proposes that we stop using the word “marriage” and substitute instead, “holy matrimony.” He explains:
“The word ‘matrimony’ also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = ‘mother’ and ‘mony,’ a suffix indicating ‘action, state, or condition.’ Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has ‘marriage’ for its nomen.”
He readily admits that there are problems with trying to regulate language in such ways. If I recall correctly, I was among those unconvinced and “perturbed that we were handing over our vocabulary to the libertines.”
We can play word games but our opponents are not fools. They were not happy with the notion of “civil unions” and wanted “marriage.” Don’t be surprised that they will also be speaking of their bonds in terms of “holy matrimony.”
Marriage is a natural right. Opting to use another word is not going to change this fact. Homosexuals and lesbians can feign marriage and the state might recognize it; but, in truth such unions are a violation of the natural law. The debate or argument is best sustained by retention of the vocabulary. We must insist that same-sex marriage is a fiction. Surrendering the word would only grant them the false sense that they had succeeded in making their argument.
If we cannot even defend a word like “marriage,” then how can we defend all the ideas behind it? This conflict is not just about marriage; it is a fight over the hearts and minds of people. So-called same sex-marriage is just one weapon in the enemy’s arsenal. The goal of our critics is to redefine the Church out of existence. The government administration wants to become the sole arbiter of marriage; but more than this— it views Catholic Charities, Catholic schools, and Catholic hospitals as standing in its way. Threats to close would only make them nationalize these institutions and they would argue that such is a “necessity” for “the public good.” This is the goal of our antagonists. If American society is to be remade then the Church must either change to insignificance or be destroyed. This is the fight we face.
Ministers of the State or of the Church
My initial sentiments emerged as an aside to the courageous crusade of Bai Macfarlane against No-Fault Divorce. The question arose as to whether clergy compromised themselves by acting as witnesses for the state, signing the marriage licenses and returning them to the courts. Msgr. Pope continues to sign them, he says, out of holy obedience to the Archbishop. Speaking for myself, I think we would forfeit too much by surrendering this privilege to the state. I suspect that problems might escalate instead of get better. Further, if the Church should opt out, would not our couples still have to get their civil licenses before Church weddings? He seems to think not, arguing that they should “in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.” I recall arguing with a hippie years ago who regarded the marriage license as just a piece of paper. In response, I cited that it came along with the Church sacrament and that it also respected the state’s right to regulate marriages as an integral building block to society. The state is taking a wrong turn with these same sex unions but we should still take advantage of our rights as citizens. That piece of paper says that as a member of society, I still have a voice and that marriage is an institution that must be acknowledged, regardless as to whether others are given such acknowledgment wrongly (in the past because of divorce and today also because of same-sex unions). Opting out will undermine a structured society, its institutions, and the protections and rights we take for granted.
I have immigrants in my parish from Asia and Africa. Their home nations do not give the privilege that our clergy enjoy in being able to witness marriages. Some of them have only known tribal weddings. Others have licenses from a judge or notary public. While they should have immediately had their marriages solemnized by a priest, they put the process off. Children were conceived. Time went by, maybe years, and now they all need Church convalidations. Would we reduce all marriages in the Church to convalidations?
If we attempt to marry people in Church who are not legally married; we will be facing all sorts of headaches. We would be opening the door to rampant bigamy where people would be civilly married to one person and married in the Church to another— without the recourse to the legal fiction of divorce. At present the state recognizes all Church unions even though the Church does not acknowledge every civil union. The last thing we should want is to segregate the Church into her own private ghetto where there are “us” and “them.” We have every right to a place in the public forum and should fight for it. Our married couples have every right to the protections insured by law (tax incentives, inheriting property, healthcare and insurance, custodial issues with offspring, hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse, and sharing a name). Marrying couples without civil licenses would once have opened our couples to prosecution for cohabitation. Even if this is a bygone concern, there is still the prospect of scandal. Some will view “married in the Church” but “not in the state” as NOT being married at all. The children from such unions could be labeled as “bastards” by our critics.
The Church has a responsibility to be fully integrated into civil society as a constitutive part. There will be conflicts but accommodations will have to be made that will not compromise our message and mission. Maybe there is a need for different types of licenses from the state for religious weddings, distinguishing them from civil ones? Indeed, there are different theologies between the churches. Some view the clergy person as the one who performs the marriage. Catholics view the spouses as the ministers of the sacrament to which the priest witnesses. Episcopalians and others will probably even allow and celebrate same-sex unions. We may become a minority voice in this society but we should not allow that voice to be silenced. Taking our toys and going home angry will not fix the situation. The retreat of the Church would be precisely what our enemies want. I fear that it would further erode the foundations of our civilization. Caesar’s empire might be pagan, but the Christian and the Church still have obligations to maintain a society that would protect our rights and freedoms.
I would maintain the status-quo with priests witnessing marriages for the state. However, there may come a day when that is taken away from us. We can cope with that when it comes. Civil disobedience might then take many forms, some of which could be extremely bizarre. One priest suggested that all our religious houses claim same-sex unions so as to get the marriage benefits and healthcare. I know one case already where a married couple got divorced but still live together so as to have better retirement benefits. I suspect that laws will be passed to force couples and the Church to behave. How far do we want to press it? Speaking for myself, I really hate retreating.
The Larger Challenge
It is my hope that we will have courageous shepherds and a supportive flock. I foresee priests facing fines and jail time for hate-speech in regard to teaching and preaching against homosexuality. After all, the Church’s language about marriage in the recent Supreme Court case was appraised as bigotry. Hum, we might have to take priests entirely out of the marriage scenario if all our clergy are locked up. Already, while the Church is currently protected, and we cannot be forced to marry homosexuals, organizations like the Knights of Columbus are not safeguarded. At this writing the free-standing Knights of Columbus halls in Maryland have been notified that due to their state charters they must rent for the wedding receptions of homosexuals and lesbians. The pressure is already on.
Our public schools are teaching that any reservation about homosexuality is discrimination. What will our children then think of their churches? Must we extract all our children from the public schools? Who will pay to place them into Catholic institutions? Homeschooling is an option for some but not for all. Where are we going from here? If the government and the media are more successful than the Church in forming consciences and teaching values; then what avenues are left? The issue is far more complex than any nomenclature of marriage or whether priests are authorized as civil magistrates. The question is how does the Church function and survive in a non-Christian society?
Catholics did not unanimously support the U.S. bishops in the Marriage Matters campaign. Indeed, large numbers were vocal in opposition. We hesitate to name names and are always fearful of our tax-exemption status. But if we are going to be shunned in a matter similar to racists over the issue of homosexual acceptance; then we will no doubt forfeit such benefits in the days ahead. I know I sound pessimistic and cynical. But that is what I see coming. The Church waited too long to find her teeth. She is an old dog grown weak from inactivity and abandoned by her pups. There are wolves coming. They want the Church out of the way. Look at the various initiatives of the current administration. Starting with appointments in religious churches and schools, then forcing churches to violate their basic principles and next pressing upon us what was once an unthinkable depravity— all these are attempts to redefine the Church out of existence. The president’s view of religion is seen through the prism of secular humanism. Anything else is judged as extraneous and must go.
There are some who are pawns to those who hate the Church. Others actually think that they are catalysts for positive change in the Church and society. Look at all the Catholic politicians who oppose the U.S. bishops and who dissent on Church teaching. The chief advocates in Maryland and in Washington are baptized Catholics. Like Msgr. Pope, I have my opinions; and like him, in obedience we both defer to the Archbishop and the national shepherds of our Church. We share our ideas, pray for courage and know that God will not abandon his children.
The news is abuzz about Jimmy Carter’s TIME interview remarks with Elizabeth Dias promoting the conference, “Mobilizing Faith for Women: Engaging the Power of Religion and Belief to Advance Human Rights and Dignity” at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia. It will be held from June 27 to June 29. Carter and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are bringing together representatives from around the world to speak about women’s rights. At least this is what they project; in truth they also are inviting radical feminists like Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and liberal voices to give a distorted understanding of women’s rights and to attack the religious views of others. Indeed, while Catholicism has often been a lone voice crying out on behalf of human rights, especially about issues like poverty, repressive regimes, and the unborn; it was associated here with the most repressive Islamic movements and terrorists.
Carter focused on the Catholic rejection of priestesses; but the motivation goes far deeper. The Church opposes so-called Choice and the lie that abortion is a woman’s right even as it strips the unborn child of all rights, starting with life. Just picking one participant at ransom, there is Susan Thistlethwaite, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress and who writes for The Washington Post. American Progress promotes gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered rights. It has lobbied for same-sex marriages. It wholeheartedly supports contraceptive and abortifacients provisions in Obama’s Healthcare plan over the religious liberty of the Catholic Church. It is on the record as pro-abortion. They even oppose chastity education over free condom giveaways and safe-sex education. It is also on the side of what it calls “progressive” religion and women’s ordination. The deck is fixed and more neutral and opposing voices are not invited.
Jimmy Carter regards the exclusion of women from the priesthood as a human rights abuse? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Ordination to the priesthood is not a natural right. It is a spiritual calling and a divine gift. It cannot be merited. No one deserves it. By definition it cannot be associated with any social justice agenda. People might debate the subject and others might request it; but no one can demand it. It is a sacrament of the Church. The Church has every right to regulate her sacraments as she sees fit. The Church has made great overtures in empowering women. They minister as pastoral associates, chancellors, office managers, directors of religious education and catechists, music directors, readers, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, religious sisters, lay missionaries, principals and teachers, and the greatest vocation of all, as mothers.
Instead of dictating to the churches and other religions; Carter should have encouraged them to find new avenues for inclusion and service for women. It is not his place to dictate “theology” which conflicts with the settled doctrine of other faith communities. If we are going to respect religious liberties then we have to paint in broad strokes and allow them the freedom and ingenuity to find ways to heal gender inequality. Not everyone looks at the world through the lenses of liberal Protestantism. Catholicism has its Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. Conservative Protestantism has its strict reliance upon a literal understanding of Scripture. Islam is a religion of “the Book” and “the Law.” Judaism is the religion of “the Promise.” Unless we are going to respect each other than there can be no true dialogue. It seems that his conference will host only those on the fringes of religious communities; not the genuine leaders who can make a difference. Dissenters condemned by lawful authority will not bring change to their religions, only more division. As for Catholics, maybe the issue is not that women are not allowed to be priests? Perhaps the real issue is that many fail to appreciate the nature of the priesthood and the many ways that women already have to serve in the Church?
The priest acts at the altar as an “alter Christus” or “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ), the head of the Church. The priest at the altar speaks Christ’s words in the first person. He is a living icon for Christ. While men and women share their human nature; men and women are not the same. Our Lord had many affiliations with women. He made the Samaritan woman at the well into a prophetess for her people. Mary Magdalene would be at the Cross and the empty tomb. Lazarus’ sisters, Martha and Mary took the posture of disciples. Mary was his Mother and the Immaculate Conception. She cooperated with the saving work of her Son like no other human being. However, not one of these women was ordained into the priesthood of Christ’s Church. Jesus broke all sorts of stereotypes, but not about this. Might it be that there is something constitutive or singular and important about the male identification of his priests with him? If so, then it would be foolhardy to attempt any change in this apostolic tradition that goes all the way back to Christ. Baptists have no such view of their ministers and do not believe that their bread and grape juice is God come down from heaven. Catholics believe that the sacred elements are transformed (transubstantiation) into the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ. We participate in an unbloody or clean way at the oblation of Calvary. Catholics are given the Risen Christ in Holy Communion. As an educated man, I would have hoped that Carter would have known better; evidently, he is ignorant of Catholic doctrine and thus made a fool of himself in trying to dictate to the Church.
No woman will ever be an authentic priest. As offensive as it might sound, their history is more related to that of priestesses in ancient pagan religions than in Christianity. The excommunicated Catholic women who attempted ordination are not real priests. Most of the men and all of the women in the Episcopal Church are not priests and certainly not bishops. However, none of this means that women are demeaned or looked down upon. Cardinal O’Boyle’s homilies at ordinations often sounded like Mother’s Day sermons. He thanked the women for giving the Church their sons; he promised the Church would always look after their boys; and he explained that they would always be the most special women in their lives. Priests are men but they are also sons. They love their mothers, as well as their sisters. They are thankful for the wonderful ladies in the parishes who breathe life into our communities and do so much of the work. The priest is the servant of all but especially to them. They see something of their mothers in all the women around them. They are faithful sons. The priesthood is no guarantee of personal holiness. No one has to be a priest to be saved. Indeed, the priesthood might bring a harsher judgment upon a man because the more one has been given the more one will be held accountable. Most men will never be priests. Women will never be priests. But all benefit from the priesthood and it is a sacrament that touches the whole Church. It makes possible the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of Penance. It grants us all a share of the bread of life and the chalice of salvation.
Carter’s increasing modernist views forced him to separate from the Southern Baptist Convention. He states in a 2000 press release that he could only associate with other Baptists “who continue to share such beliefs as separation of church and state, servanthood and not domination of pastors, local church autonomy, a free religious press and equality of women.” While there are areas of legitimate rights, anti-Catholic remarks were placed in the mix, and Catholic teaching demonized by their association with genuine wrongs. The issue of women’s ordination is a far cry from subjects like female castration, violence against women, human trafficking in terms of slavery and prostitution, and denying the rights of women to education and to full participation in the governing structures of society.
Am I exaggerating about the extent of this assault upon Catholic discipline and doctrine? Look at what the former president said in the interview:
“Well, religion can be, and I think there’s a slow, very slow, move around the world to give women equal rights in the eyes of God. What has been the case for many centuries is that the great religions, the major religions, have discriminated against women in a very abusive fashion and set an example for the rest of society to treat women as secondary citizens. In a marriage or in the workplace or wherever, they are discriminated against. And I think the great religions have set the example for that, by ordaining, in effect, that women are not equal to men in the eyes of God.”
Notice that he is lumping together Christianity with other world religions as if there is no distinction. This seems surprising given that he is a deacon in the Baptist church! Of course, he has issues with his own denomination and left the more conservative branch of his denomination for an “anything goes” version, where his wife has also been made a deacon. How could he sanely compare the treatment of women in the Church with the repression we see in Islam? There are Islamic societies where women must clothe their entire bodies, even their faces, from the outside world. Their bodies are mutilated and they are regarded as property. Radical Islam and it has yet to be proven that this is the minority view, grants them only the most elementary education and no leadership roles. Catholicism, on the other hand, argues for the full dignity of women, which includes “motherhood,” a bad word to some of the liberal dissenters! Catholicism would grant them education, civil leadership, and participation in the workforce. Catholic women serve as the chancellors of dioceses, office managers of churches, principals and teachers of parochial schools, physicians and nurses in our hospitals, and are counted among the great saints and doctors of the Church! Indeed, the greatest of God’s creatures is “the Woman” or New Eve, the Blessed Virgin Mary!
While the priesthood is reserved to men, such is because we are restricted to the model given us by Christ and it is not subject to social reinterpretation. The equality for which Catholicism argues is one of complementarity, not egalitarianism. Men and women are coheirs in grace and equal in dignity. But men and women are not the same. Those who argue otherwise logically have no problem with homosexual and lesbian unions. Such is the plight of those who make gender utterly insignificant. It is a deception against nature and the God of nature. Just as only women can be mothers; only men can be priests. Women conceive and give birth to new life from their wombs. Priests consecrate the real presence of Christ upon our altars and make possible new life from the womb of the Church.
Carter becomes as bad a fiend as the current administration in dictating to the Church what should be doctrine and morals. Has there been collaboration in this? It is in this light that the bizarre recent Supreme Court case becomes clearer. Why would the administration want authority over the staffing of churches and seminaries? It would insure that only the people who thought as they do would have positions of influence and teaching. Note also President Obama’s recent words in Ireland:
“There are still wounds [in Northern Ireland] that haven’t healed and communities where tensions and mistrust hangs in the air… If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.”
No matter how you try to spin it, the fact is this comes across as an effort to shut down or maybe even to nationalize Catholic schools— and taking God out of public schools much as we have in the United States. Brian Burch, president of the group Catholic Vote, offered this pointed correction: “Catholic schools educate children without regard for race, class, sex, origin, or even religious faith. The work of Catholic education is a response to the Gospel call to serve, not divide.”
One could argue that through Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, through our parochial school system and universities, etc., Catholics have been at the forefront of the battle for human rights. Back when Jimmy Carter’s church was urging segregation and espousing racism, the Catholic Church was already desegregating its schools and had priests marching with Martin Luther King. There was no greater defender of labor unions and worker’s rights as the late Msgr. Higgins. Today, we are at the forefront of the fight against abortion and the defense of the sanctity of life, something which Carter and other humanists have betrayed. He and his compatriots no longer have sufficient moral standing to critique the Catholic faith.
Carter has his doctorate in physics, but what does he really know of Catholic doctrine and moral teaching? Has he read Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem on the Dignity and Vocation of Women? Pope John Paul II, who argued infallibly that only men can be ordained as priests, wrote this:
“Therefore the Church gives thanks for each and every woman: for mothers, for sisters, for wives; for women consecrated to God in virginity; for women dedicated to the many human beings who await the gratuitous love of another person; for women who watch over the human persons in the family, which is the fundamental sign of the human community; for women who work professionally, and who at times are burdened by a great social responsibility; for ‘perfect’ women and for ‘weak’ women – for all women as they have come forth from the heart of God in all the beauty and richness of their femininity; as they have been embraced by his eternal love; as, together with men, they are pilgrims on this earth, which is the temporal ‘homeland’ of all people and is transformed sometimes into a ‘valley of tears’; as they assume, together with men, a common responsibility for the destiny of humanity according to daily necessities and according to that definitive destiny which the human family has in God himself, in the bosom of the ineffable Trinity. / The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine ‘genius’ which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations; she gives thanks for all the charisms which the Holy Spirit distributes to women in the history of the People of God, for all the victories which she owes to their faith, hope and charity: she gives thanks for all the fruits of feminine holiness. / The Church asks at the same time that these invaluable ‘manifestations of the Spirit’ (cf. 1 Cor 12:4ff.), which with great generosity are poured forth upon the ‘daughters’ of the eternal Jerusalem, may be attentively recognized and appreciated so that they may return for the common good of the Church and of humanity, especially in our times. Meditating on the biblical mystery of the ‘woman’, the Church prays that in this mystery all women may discover themselves and their ‘supreme vocation’.”
Women would do better to subscribe to the Holy Father’s view of women over the distorted and impoverished version promoted by our society and by the former president.
Clinton understands neither Christian anthropology and womanhood nor the sacramental nature or reality of the priesthood. Of course, how could he understand? As a Baptist, he rejects the identification of the ordained man with the high priesthood of Jesus Christ. Priests are not the same as ministers. Indeed, his version of ministry would even strip Catholic ministers of their pastoral authority and make them pawns of trustees like himself.
Carter enumerates upon his view of Catholic discrimination:
“This has been done and still is done by the Catholic Church ever since the third century, when the Catholic Church ordained that a woman cannot be a priest for instance but a man can. A woman can be a nurse or a teacher but she can’t be a priest. This is wrong, I think. As you may or may not know, the Southern Baptist Convention back now about 13 years ago in Orlando, voted that women were inferior and had to be subservient to their husbands, and ordained that a woman could not be a deacon or a pastor or a chaplain or even a teacher in a classroom in some seminaries where men are in the classroom, boys are in the classroom. So my wife and I withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention primarily because of that.”
The truth be said, the pattern was established by Christ that only men could be ordained. The Council of Nicea would forbid the placing of hands upon the head of a woman for ordination but this was not because there was a debate in Catholic circles. There were false Christians or Gnostics who regarded matter as evil and contended that Jesus was a spiritual being who only pretended to be human and to die on the Cross. They had priestesses because of this basic rejection of the incarnation. Gender is not an accidental but touches the core identity of the person. The Church, then and now, felt compelled to follow the pattern of Christ and the apostles. As Pope John Paul II explained, the Church does not have the authority to change this pattern. If we were to do so anyway, and such was in contravention of the divine will, we would forfeit forever both the priesthood and the Eucharist. In other words, the Church, herself, would come to an end. Remember, while Protestants have ecclesial communities, theologically speaking a “church” requires an authentic priesthood and the Eucharist (Christ’s real presence and the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary). Baptists have neither of these already. Carter wants the Catholic Church to become a variation of liberal Protestantism!
Carter continues:
“But I now go to a more moderate church in Plains, a small church, it’s part of the Cooperative Baptist fellowship, and we have a male and a female pastor, and we have women and have men who are deacons. My wife happens to be one of the deacons. So some of the Baptists are making progress, along with Methodists. For instance the other large church in Plains is a Methodist church, and they have a man for the last eight years and the next pastor they get will be a woman. They’ve had a woman pastor before, before the Baptists did. And of course the Episcopalians and other denominations that are Protestant do permit women or encourage women to be bishops, as you know, and pastors.”
Okay, so he bases his entirely opinion to change 2,000 years of Catholic practice and holy orders upon a handful of Protestant churches in his hometown! As for the Episcopalians, they also allow divorced and gay clergy. Would he argue for these concessions as well?
He concludes by speaking about the status of women under Islam, as if there is any real comparison. Even here he contends that strict laws against women are due to “misquoting the major points of the Qur’an.” Evidently, he now counts himself not only an expert on Catholic sacraments and administration as well as Islamic teaching and laws. Please, this is ridiculous. He is fearful of offending the Moslem world by saying that the Qur’an is wrong for teaching such things.
Clinton ignores Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition entirely by condemning Catholic practices. Catholicism would allow women to serve in virtually any occupation they want except the priesthood. Nothing is said about the powerful and saintly women who served selflessly and courageously in our religious orders. Nevertheless, he associates such a prohibition with Islam forcing “ten year old girls” to “marry against their wishes,” “that women can be treated as slaves in a marriage,” “that a woman can’t drive an automobile,” and that “some countries don’t let women vote, like Saudi Arabia.” He neglects to tell us that Christianity is virtually outlawed in Saudi Arabia. The rights of women have emerged and have been protected in Christian and Catholic nations. There is no comparison, although he forces one upon us.
It saddens me that this proposed conference is so slanted to the left. Where are the more sober voices? He states, “But anyway, I say that the emphasis of condoning of violence on the general population, and the denigration of women as inferior, those are the two things we are going to address in this conference.” The topic is good but I am fearful that his targeting is way off.
The topic of women’s ordination in the Catholic Church is permanently off the table. Dissenters and busy-bodies from other denominations will just have to get used to it. As Pope John Paul II declared:
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) 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.”
As if ignorant Catholics giving a distorted witness were not bad enough, now we have a Baptist deacon and former president trying to tell the Church its business and what it should do. It is unbelievable. How many Catholic priests or deacons would argue for the reform of the Baptist denomination so that it would conform to the structure of historic Catholicism? We might invite them to become Catholics but we would not proselytize or seek control over the internal structures of their churches. Today, the executive administration of our country and dissenters are seeking just that in regard to Catholicism, the overthrow of the Church and the severing of ties to the Pope and traditional Christianity. It sickens me and is ample evidence that all the talk about tolerance and mutual understanding is a smokescreen for just the opposite. Religious liberty does not mean that we can change the Church into whatever we want. Rather, it means that churches, temples and synagogues have a right to exist on their own terms and not to have doctrine changed or imposed by either government or radical fringe groups. If liberal Catholics want birth-control, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex unions, sexual cohabitation, no-fault divorce with legalized adultery, and women priests— then they should make up their own “church” with their counterfeit Jesus, leaving the rest of us to the truth. Or they could just join the “anything goes” Episcopalians with their charade liturgies and “real absence” communion sacrament.
No matter whether Protestant or Catholic, the late Pope John Paul II lamented that believers in Christ would sometimes seek to use violence against consciences and to forcibly stamp their religion upon others. The Medieval view was that heresy was a mortal sin that killed the soul. Some argued that such was a capital crime given that the murder of souls was direr than the murder of bodies. Governments also usurped religion for political purposes, seeing religion as glue that held society together. On both sides there was often exaggeration as to the blood lust of the other. Indeed, to this very day, anti-Catholic bigots will use impossibly large numbers in their prejudicial arguments and slurs against the Church. Some critics bring up the crusades or the inquisitions as if they happened last Tuesday. Forgotten is the real threat that Islam posed for the Christian world and how money and power, as well as an invention called the printing press, fueled the Protestant Reformation. Many of the inquisition courts were very modest in their efforts. While there were various national courts, when there is criticism, the target is usually the harsher Spanish Inquisition, which was even criticized by Rome. Further, as I already said, Protestant monarchs would repress the freedoms of Catholics just as Catholic leaders had sought to minimize the damage of non-Catholic factions in their nations. The Inquisition in Italy is regarded by all authorities as the most mild. Crimes were not just heresy but infractions for which today’s civil courts would also render punishment. Of 75,000 cases judged, some 1,250 may have received the death sentence.
What was the position of the Protestant reformers?
Calvin sought to persecute heretics (particularly Roman Catholics) so as to keep Protestant believers in the lands divided by the Reformation faithful to his new teachings. He viciously persecuted the Spaniard, Michael Servetus, having him burnt alive on October 27, 1553. As early as 1545, Calvin had written, “If he [Servetus] comes to Geneva, I will never allow him to depart alive.” He kept his promise. (Here is a case where Protestants attacked their own in that Servetus, while having a brother who was a Catholic priest, had participated in the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, he was regarded as a heretic by both sides.)
Melancthon, one of the more mild reformers and the editor for Luther’s many works and teachings, would write to Bullinger, “I am astonished that some persons denounce the severity that was so justly used in that case.”
Theodore of Beza wrote: “What crime can be greater or more heinous than heresy, which sets at nought the word of God and all ecclesiastic discipline? Christian magistrates, do your duty to God [speaking in Calvin’s Geneva of 1554], who has put the sword into your hands for the honor of His majesty; strike valiantly these monsters in the guise of men.” He went on to characterize those who demanded freedom of conscience “worse than the tyranny of the pope. It is better to have a tyrant, no matter how cruel he may be, than to let everyone do as he pleases.”
Martin Luther also fanned the flames of intolerance, “Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”
Much of this information (and numbers) is taken from The Truth about the Inquisition by John A. O’Brien and published in 1950 by The Paulist Press. It should be noted that the numbers of deaths under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth have been challenged by other researchers.
King Henry VIII of England took upon himself the role of grand royal inquisitor. O’Brien states that the king took the lives of some 72,000 Catholics, many who were cruelly tortured. Father Francis Marsden offers the correction: “Henry’s victims were John Fisher and Thomas More, the Carthusian abbots and monks, and a few more Catholics, plus all those (several hundred) executed after the Pilgrimage of Grace. There were also a number of Protestants executed for denying the Six Articles of 1540. But he certainly did not kill 72,000.” Nevertheless, the best estimate from Wikipedia is that approximately 70,000 people were executed (for all offenses) during the reign of Henry VIII. Another critic suggests that there may have been 4,000 Catholics killed under Henry VIII, not “judicially” executed, but killed by agents of the Crown, soldiers and the like. There were some Catholic revolts put down by force. The figures go up and down, making a historical analysis difficult. But for those facing death, no matter what the number, it was bad.
Queen Elizabeth, says O’Brien, proved herself the former’s daughter by putting to death more people in one year than the Inquisition had done in 331 years! Here too, Father Marsden insists that “In England and Wales, we have about 500 martyrs and confessors in total over the period 1534 to 1679. I believe the last Catholic died in prison about 1720. Elizabeth’s victims may have been about 300, plus those executed after the rising of the Northern Earls of 1569-70. But this is over the whole of her reign, 1558-1603.” By contrast, “the death toll of the Inquisition is in the range 2000 to 5000.”
Yes, there was more than enough blame to go around. Maybe it is time for respect and dialogue and if need be, the charitable anathema, instead of mockery and half-truths? Of course, sometimes the truth is hard to discover. I was told that one of Sir Thomas More’s own letters makes mention of the death of 4,000 Catholics in the minor port town of Chelsea. However, another critic corrected that in 1528 the population of Chelsea was reported to be 190 adults and children, including 16 households which grew no corn, and Sir Thomas More reported that 100 were fed daily in his household, 49 though not all those would have been living in the parish. In 1548 there were 75 communicants (16 years and over).
The Catholic Truth Society reckoned that 318 men and woman were put to death for the Faith in England between the reigns of Henry VII and Charles II. “After being hanged up, they were cut down, ripped up, and their bowels were burned in their faces.”
The entire population of England and Wales at that time was only around 4 million.
O’Brien makes reference to the whole vicious enmity that would bring persecution and deaths for centuries. Henry VIII got the ball rolling (or heads rolling) and even had himself declared head of the Church in Ireland. Monasteries were closed and destroyed, monks were imprisoned, dispersed and executed, and lands were confiscated.
It was a Protestant England that committed genocide upon a starving Catholic Ireland. The guilt for that blood is on the hands of many, including the one who initiated the break with the true Church. Today, the truth of this betrayal is admitted in UK school text books. Crops were sold by the landowners even as the tenants themselves starved.
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.
Blogger Priest 