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.
Given that women are excluded from the sacrament of Holy Orders, does this mean that in the Catholic Church there are seven sacraments for men and only six for women? How is this fair? What are we to tell young women who feel a calling to ministry?
While some critics contend that Jesus only selected men as his apostles given the prejudices and chauvinistic conventions of his times, there are many instances where Jesus raised up the dignity of women and highlighted their call to witness and service. How could Jesus extend spiritual liberation to us if he were not free to do as he pleased? Indeed, the fact that he is a sign of contradiction that is betrayed and murdered is a testimonial of his freedom. He would do what is right and is not subject to coercion. He shows us the way to true freedom. When it comes to his dealings with women, he cherishes them as disciples and prophets, but not as apostles or priests.
The first relationship that comes to mind is with his Mother. She is a strong and courageous woman, who self-proclaims herself as the handmaid of the Lord. If the tradition be true then she is learned of her faith due to her service as a child-servant in the temple. Mary is present at the most important moments of salvation history: at the annunciation, at the presentation in the temple, at the start of Christ’s public ministry in Cana, at his passion and death upon the Cross on Calvary and as a witness of the risen Lord among the eleven in the Upper Room. There are also the two faithful sisters of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. There is the repentant and faithful Mary Magdalene. Indeed, there is the exceptional Samaritan woman who encounters Jesus at the well and then testifies about him to her people. Nevertheless, while Jesus is willing to break with the conventions of his day; he still only selects men to be his apostles or his first bishop-priests. This is a pattern that would remain unbroken. Indeed, the early councils (as at Nicea) would forbid the “laying on of hands” or ordination of women.
The Gnostic heretics ordained women but they also denied the incarnation. They taught that Jesus only pretended to be a man and as one subject to death. Since matter and the body were given a negative value, they did not perceive an issue with priestesses as an alternative to priests. Catholic Christianity has always insisted that matter is not inherently evil and that it cannot be subtracted or ignored in the equation of redemption. Our Lord joined himself to humanity in a male body. This flesh was integral to his identity. Indeed, we are promised restoration as ensouled bodies.
Gender is not an accidental to who we are. We are not angels or pure spirits. This truth is discerned in all the sacraments which are signified by form and matter. Baptism requires water (matter) and the words that invoke the name of the Trinity (form). The Eucharist requires bread and wine (matter)along with the words of consecration (form). Ordination requires the intention to ordain priests with the laying on of hands (form) upon men (matter) called to ministry. One could not baptize with beer. One could not celebrate the Mass with milk and cookies. One could not ordain a woman substituted for a man.
The pattern established by Jesus brought no derision upon the dignity of women but neither was it a pattern that the Church felt free to alter in any manner. Given that our faith is in the person of Jesus Christ, then we must acknowledge that he knew what he was doing and that it served his purposes. Pope St. John Paul II in his 1994 encyclical Ordonatio Sacerdotalis, infallibly taught, once and for all, that the Catholic Church has no power whatsoever to ordain women to the priesthood. Many churchmen may very much want to ordain women. But the Church is faithful to Christ, even if there should be matters we do not fully understand. If we violated the pattern given by Christ, then the whole Church would be jeopardized. The Episcopalians or Anglicans may be in this situation. Orders in the Anglican Church were deemed null-and-void given a change in their prayer book after the break with Rome. About a century passed where the intention to ordain priests who make sacrifice was edited from their rituals. Apostolic succession was lost. Some have argued that it might be partially restored today through the participation of former Catholics in their ranks and Orthodox bishops at their ordinations. Unfortunately, even if there should be a partial restoration, it is further jeopardized by the presence of women presbyters and bishops. If their ordination is counter to the will of Christ, then all the Anglicans are doing is playing dress up. There are no true women priests (or rather, priestesses) in Christianity. If the Catholic Church were to follow suit and attempt to ordain women, it would place the sacraments at stake. If the priest is a sham then the Mass and absolution for sins would be forfeited as well. The equation is simple: no priesthood = no Eucharist = no Church.
The pattern of Jesus in selecting men and not women for the priesthood is normative for all ages. Any change would require a new revelation from the Lord. Not even the pope has the authority to change this teaching and practice.
The one who would extend the Holy Spirit to the Church is himself filled with the Spirit. His every step is aligned with divine providence. His miraculous works and signs are enabled by the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit preserves the Church in the truth, especially about those most essential elements of faith. The apostles are made the first of his ministers of a long-line throughout history, extending his proclamation of the Good News and realizing his saving works in the sacraments he instituted. The male-only priesthood emerges as part of his plan for the legacy and life of the Church. God does not fumble or make mistakes, even when the men chosen are sometimes less than saintly.
The first apostles were Jews but later Jews and Gentiles would be chosen. Some of those chosen were married, but there was a growing emphasis upon celibacy from the beginning. However, while the apostles and priests were married and single, Jew and Gentile, not one of the successors chosen would ever be a woman. This is the case all the way to the present day. This two-thousand-year consistency speaks volumes about the will of Christ upon the matter of ordination. The tradition is clear and uninterrupted, century after century.
The Church also makes use of the bridal analogy that we see in Scripture, especially in the writings of St. Paul. The substitution of a woman would destroy this ancient analogy and wrongly signify a lesbian relationship of a bride to a bride. The priest stands at the altar “in the person of Christ” the groom and head of his bride, the Church. The priest is a living and breathing icon or image of Christ. Certain religious traditions demand that the priest have a beard, an “accidental” that makes self-evident the “substantial” element of his maleness which he shares with Jesus Christ.
Years ago I recall an interview where certain women who had undertaken theological training and had a background of church service, demanded that they be ordained priests. They were angry and claimed the Church was deaf to their cries. They said that they deserved to be priests— that they had earned it. But such an attitude is counter to the truth about the priesthood. Even men with such a mentality would probably best not be ordained.
The priesthood is not something that one might earn as in a social justice agenda. The underlying meaning comes out at the foot washing by Jesus of his apostles. Those who would lead the faith community must become the servants of all. The priesthood is a gift that must be exploited in giving. The priest lives for others. He preaches God’s Word, not his own. His very reason for living is the forgiveness of sins. He makes present the Lord, both in his sacramental presence and in his saving activity. Never in the history of the world had God given such authority to men as he did with his priesthood. And yet, ironically, the priesthood is not about personal power and prestige. It is about being the servant of all, literally a slave to honor God and to serve the needs of God’s people. His servanthood is a fundamental imitation of Christ (Mark 10:45).
It would be wrong to say that there are seven sacraments for men and only six for women. Most men and all women will never be ordained priests. However, all the laity, men and women, are summoned to participate with their priest at Mass. The celebrant makes possible the offering of the congregants at the liturgy. Along with the gifts of bread and wine, believers join themselves to Christ— as grafted to him— as one oblation within the Lamb of God and accepted by the heavenly Father. We pray, not only that bread and wine will become the flesh and blood of Christ, but that all of us may be transformed by grace into the likeness of Christ. It is in this sense that the priesthood enables our own faith and our own oblations. We are united in the Mass and the priest’s absolution insures our growth in holiness. Our universal and most essential vocation is not to the priesthood but to holiness. All of us are called to be saints.
I was reminded of the “Healing Your Family Tree” phenomenon among certain Charismatics and Exorcists while reading about Msgr. Clement Machado and watching a few of his YouTube EWTN videos. He claims to have had visions of the Blessed Mother and St. Patrick. I am skeptical… but who knows? The Church has many saints and seers. The children of Fatima were given a vision of hell so as to pray more fervently for souls.
While Catholicism certainly encourages prayers for the souls of the dead, this idea of targeting sins and woundedness in past generations for current problems faced by believers goes back to the ancient Jews. They believed that punishment for the sins of one’s fathers could be visited upon the children. Our notion of Original Sin is an extension of this. However, at least as a routine source of particular ailments, Jesus seems to dismiss this notion.
“As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world’” (John 9:1-5).
While we would not deny our connection with those who have gone before us, if taken too far, we might fall into superstition or the occult. The sacrifice of the Mass makes possible atonement but it is a sacrament that conveys grace and mercy. It is not sorcery or magic. Further, we cannot purely blame our problems on deceased family members. We live in a broken world and sometimes we are our own worst enemies. It may be that certain maladies are placed before us so that we might demonstrate or witness to a courageous faith. Catholicism does not run away from all sickness and pain but often seeks to transform the dark realities. They are opportunities for us to take up our crosses in following Jesus. There is already too much of a “victim mentality” inflicting our society— regarding ethnicity, gender, orientation and social status. I am worried that such ideas as healing the family tree may often be misunderstood in this light.
We are all aware of the excesses of popular Protestant ministers who put on a big show in conducting “purported” healings. Many pagans and so-called demonologists dangerously tinker with exorcisms. Returning to the Catholic camp, there is a temptation, especially among the rising celebrity priests, to emphasize what they can do over what Jesus can do. While the Church needs exorcists, it is best that the ministry be imposed upon the priest rather than enthusiastically embraced outside of an episcopal summons. Indeed, while any priest can offer absolution and deliverance prayer, full exorcisms require the authorization of the immediate bishop. (When I think about this issue my mind quickly recalls Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, a wonderful defender of human life who fumbled in this area.)
Sharing information is fine, but sensationalism about the devil, exorcism and obsession can pose a real danger. After the release of popular horror movies, chanceries are bombarded by phone calls of people who all think they are possessed. While we battle powers and principalities, much sin finds its origin in the world of men and many who imagine they are spiritually afflicted are in actuality mentally disturbed.
During November there is a special emphasis upon prayers for the dead. Yes, we can claim spiritual benefits for the dead and the living. There is a two-fold action— uniting and breaking off. A funeral Mass offered for the dead brings grace and we commend the deceased, particularly the souls in purgatory, to the mercy of God. They are sped on their way. We invoke the purification of God’s love, a fire that heals. Our prayer also joins us to the communion of the saints. Simultaneously, if there are any negative spiritual elements, as with those who have rejected God’s love, then that bond is severed with the living. The expression “rest in peace” can apply to the living just as well as to the dead. But ultimate judgment is left to almighty God. While there might be little or no fanfare, Catholics need to trust the sacraments, especially the Mass. We need to encourage the offering of Masses for the dead and for healing in times of trauma. This is the most effective and resolute manner of healing “the family tree.”
My late father back in the 1950’s spent time as a Trappist monk at Holy Cross Monastery in Berryville, VA. He firmly believed that his life of work and prayer there, combined with the sacrifice of the Holy Mass, facilitated the translation of all our family ancestors from purgatory to heaven. The emphasis should NOT be upon how links to the dead can plague us. Rather, recalling that the poor souls are now helpless, we should intercede on their behalf. As we prepare to celebrate All Souls Day, we should all recommit ourselves to praying for the dead.
I had two posts on Facebook about the nomination and proceedings around Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The first began simply as a posting of a letter from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson urging the members of the Knights of Columbus to contact their senators in support of a potential Justice who believes in interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written. Given the escalating controversy, and not wanting to bring any embarrassment upon the Order, I removed the letter.
Along with this letter there was a CNS news report wherein Msgr. John Enzler (the president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington) acclaimed the virtues of a man he had known since Kavanaugh was 12 years old. Kavanaugh was one of his altar boys at Little Flower in Bethesda, MD. He thinks he may have baptized his two daughters, he still sees him monthly at his evening Mass, and he works with him at St. Maria’s Meals (a program that serves meals to low-income individuals and families). He belongs to the Catholic John Carroll Society and helps out with other lawyers and professionals. Kavanaugh also coaches the girls’ basketball team at his parish and tutors at the Washington Jesuit Academy and J.O. Wilson Elementary School. “His faith really shines through in who he is,” Enzler said. In addition to his volunteer work, Kavanaugh also reads as a lector at his church, the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Washington. After his nomination, he stated, “members of the vibrant Catholic community in the D.C. area disagree about many things, but we are united in our commitment to serve.” Msgr. Enzler praised him as a man: “This is your neighbor next door. He’s a great husband, a wonderful father to his daughters, and has lots and lots of friends. He’s very intellectual, of course, but you wouldn’t know it by his demeanor.”
After the allegations of assault were made, Msgr. Enzler did not back off from his recommendation: “I know Brett Kavanaugh to be a man of honesty and integrity. My opinion of him is based upon a 40-year relationship in which he’s never given me any reason to doubt his veracity and character. Hopefully the facts concerning the recent allegations will bear out my trust in him.”
One of the few civil comments of disagreement to the endorsement from Supreme came from my dear friend Robert White. He wrote:
“Fr. Joe, I can’t do that. I think that this is the wrong man for the bench not because of the sexual allegations against him but because I believe that he is coming to the bench with a predetermined mind on other issues relating to the powers of the executive branch of government which will have far lasting negative impact on our freedoms. ‘Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790).”
My response followed:
“(I have to admit that I was a bit surprised by the letter from Supreme.) I have no issue with those who have their own logical and concrete reasons for opposing the nomination although I think every potential Justice has a view of some sort about the separation of powers. My preference is for one that fully respects the demarcation of powers and jurisdiction between the Judiciary, Legislative and Executive branches of government. I think we have seen the alternating expansion of the Executive and Judicial branches due to the unfortunate ineffectiveness of the Senate and Congress to get things done. The Justices should neither create laws nor ‘trump’ those already passed and the President should not rule as a king or despot.”
It was an agreeable exchange.
Next there was a link to a recent television news story with a dear friend and teen that I knew from St. Ann’s in NW DC back in the 1980’s and 90’s. I thought it was a good interview. Bettina asserts that whatever the vote, the role of women in the public forum, their presence, rights and needs are in ascendancy and that we are going to have to take more seriously the treatment of women. I may disagree with her about many important issues of the day but none of that takes away from the fact that she is one smart lady. Bettina also notes that this is a lesson or wakeup call for teens that what they do now in high school (and I would add in college) will have lasting repercussions in the days ahead.
Partisanship and the “party first” mentality, regardless of which side of the aisle, is toxic.
Turning to the second deleted post, I tried to be creative and used an analogy or story of two children playing in a sandbox where one child throws a bucket at the other. I was soon thereafter told that I was making light of rape. Indeed, the initial comment was particularly vicious. Knowing that I was a priest one offered the slur that my remarks were typical since the bishops were hiding boy-rapists. This remark pained me terribly, not only given the recent scandals, but because it was written by someone I care about. I do not see him very often but I could not love him more if he were my own son. I deleted the comment. But it did not take away the sense of pain and betrayal I felt.
I had deliberately tried to steer clear of sexual connotations and was instead focusing upon the issue of timeliness. The question I was hoping people would ask was how far back do we search to find incriminating evidence for present allegations of wrong doing? A dangerous precedent was being set. Allegations without evidence from any moment in a person’s developmental trajectory (even childhood) might suffice to discredit a person’s good name and a lifetime of credible and worthwhile service. One person commented with a joke about the time of birth. I took it even further where the unborn child is sometimes wrongly accused as an unjust aggressor. (It is still my conviction that the ultimate abuse of women is abortion.) A few critics were utterly incensed by the post and comments.
It grieved me that I could be so thoroughly misunderstood. Both posts and my accompanying comments were about treating people (everyone) with respect. I did poke fun at the investigation into the judge’s youth and yearbook, as well as the somewhat odd but fortuitous keeping of a calendar-diary. But people hear or read what they want hear. I accept blame for a failure to communicate more clearly. I am saddened more than I can say, especially by the “ad hominem” attacks against me. President Trump may be the master of that manner of debate, but his critics on the other side of the political divide are also quickly mastering this manner of attack— targeting persons instead of ideas. Ideas are frequently not discussed; the winner is deemed to be the one who interrupts and shouts the loudest.
In any case, the second Facebook post on Judge Kavanaugh is gone because I got tired of misunderstandings and personal attacks. If I erred in my remarks, I apologize. It was never my intention to hurt anyone or to trivialize either the fear that women feel or the personal violation that is signified by assault. I would have hoped that people for whom I care and love would have privately messaged me their concerns instead of publicly threatening and condemning me. (Note that in return I will not share their names here.) I do not have words for how I feel. I guess that is one of the crosses that come with real love— the pain of discovering that loving and caring is not returned. The message that some communicate is this, if you disagree with me then you are a bigot, that you are mean and hateful, that you are insensitive, and then may come alienation and disassociation.
It was within the second post that a fellow Knight and I were criticized (should I say condemned) as “middle-aged white males” as if our maturity, gender and ethnicity were crimes. My motives were questioned and emotionally it challenged my own Christian civility. I want to apologize to my brother in the Knights of Columbus for the treatment he received.
It seems to me that sometimes a few words or a posting might touch something deeper and unseen. It still seems to me that much of what was written in the post and comments was fairly innocuous and cautiously circumspect. Again, there was no intention or real effort to be offensive or hurtful. There was never any assertion that Christine Ford was lying, just as there was no possible certitude either way about Judge Kavanaugh. However, it should ultimately matter if an error might bring about the destruction of a person’s good name. Calumny is still a sin and the possibility of any crime does not negate the wrong of hurting innocent people. That is what makes this situation so very complicated. While some critics view the issue of the abuse of women as the only important matter; in truth, we must have a commensurate perspective of the situation. One of my Facebook friends actually argues that the allegation alone is enough to have the nomination dismissed. This is not dissimilar from the situation faced by innocent clergy in the face of false charges. While we want to protect our children and women, are we willing to do so by destroying the innocent along with the guilty? One of my friends was in the newspapers and she seemed to apply the argument of guilt by association. In other words, since such parties did happen and boys did misbehave then all boys are probably guilty. This is not good reasoning.
There was nothing in my post or comments about “sweeping the issue under the rug.” It was here that a critic cited the bad witness of the Catholic Church. I guess at this point I was supposed to shut up because given the scandals, priests are presumed by many as no longer having any moral authority whatsoever.
It is true that one of the persons making a comment (man or woman) did make a joke about the culpability of a naked boy baby in a room of nurses. But that was not my comment. I did however reference it to speak about the very real bias that some have about men, even from the womb. Here is what I wrote precisely: “Planned Parenthood could top that, literally arguing that before he was born he was violating a woman’s body as a fetus and thus caused her to question her right to choose. But critics rarely consider that abortion is the most prevalent abuse of women. This mentality is no joke. There was a NOW advocate back in the 1990’s who stated in a rally on the DC Mall that sex between a man and woman was always rape and that to give birth to a male child was to be raped again. As a militant lesbian, she promoted abortion so that male children could be terminated.” This perspective is an extreme, but it is real. Further, this mentality is just as heinous as the disproportionate numbers of aborted female children in India so as to avoid paying a dowry.
My Knights of Columbus friend and I were singled-out as “middle-aged white males” who because we did not have the worries of women, especially about rape and kidnapping, could not possibly understand. I wanted to scream, “How dare you— how dare you?” The post and comment are gone but I was wounded and furious. “My friend has a family and daughter for which he would lay down his life. Do you think he never worries about her? I bought the mace for my goddaughter when she went to college. I prayed and worried about her every day. Were you there when I spent the night crying with and counseling a young woman assaulted by her boss? Were you there when a woman sobbed in my arms after being beaten by her husband? Were you in the courtroom when I stood by a mother’s side for support as she tried to insure punishment of a man that had abducted her daughter? Were you there when I held hands with a husband and wife in prayer when we learned that her therapist had taken advantage of the wife?” Were you there when I tried to reaffirm a woman’s self-worth when she equated her boyfriend walking away and not wanting sex with her as rejection as worthless? Were you there when I received a call after midnight from young teenage girls under the influence of alcohol (after one of those nefarious parties) and needing a ride to get home safely? Were you there when a man threatened to kill me unless I told him where I had sent his wife and child for shelter against his drunken abuse? No you were not. But you think you can judge me.”
Women seemingly have a heightened religious sense. Priests are surrounded by women. If I were utterly insensitive to their needs, they would quickly let me know. During my priesthood I have counseled and aided many women who were mistreated by boyfriends and husbands. I have fought for both the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons. Balancing both compassion and justice, no one should make light of charges of assault or rape, but neither should we presume guilt without evidence. The fact that a senator dissected the meaning of innocuous high school yearbook posts struck me as beyond ridiculous and misplaced. That was the catalyst for the attempt at satire with children playing in a sandbox.
While the posts were still active, I have had to delete a few comments. I reserve the right to do so toward anything that I feel is malignant toward me and/or to the Church. I must ask forgiveness for the deletion of supportive comments in the missing posts. (The upset was ironic as I have never personally expressed either support or opposition for the nominee.)
It is true that I made fun of the wayward process and what I viewed as unfair treatment toward the judge. However, as a pastor of souls I also feel for women who have suffered at the hands of men and who sympathize with his accuser over her allegations. She came across as quite convincing. The judge said that he had no reason to doubt her sincerity in that something happened to her; however, he maintained throughout that it did not involve him. Unless one can read souls, we have no way of knowing for sure. These “he said, she said” debates are often quite hard to resolve. I would urge fairness and justice to all parties. Just as the judge’s little girl urged prayer for her dad’s accuser, we as believers should pray for all involved. Senator John Kennedy had some forceful words for his colleagues, a day after he asked Kavanaugh to “swear to god” that he did not commit the assault against Dr. Ford. “There were no winners in this room,” he said. “All I saw were two people, two human beings in pain.” Very true, but I suspect that if he could see beyond the room, he would also see a whole nation in pain.
ALLEGATIONS
Julie Swetnick issued a statement in which she claimed she’d observed Kavanaugh at alcohol-fueled parties where women were mistreated.
Deborah Ramirez told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drunken dorm party 35 years ago at Yale.
Christine Blasey Ford made against Kavanaugh related to a period when she and the judge were in high school. She told The Washington Post that a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed during a party and put his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams as he tried to take off her clothes.
“Christ himself, the model of priests, taught first by the example of his deeds and then by his words: Jesus began to do and then to teach. Likewise, a priest who neglects his own sanctification can never be the salt of the earth; what is corrupt and contaminated is utterly incapable of preserving from corruption; where sanctity is lacking, there corruption will inevitably find its way.”
– St. Pius X
We are taught as Catholics that the Church is holy because Christ is holy. This is what gives truth value to the second mark of the Church mentioned every time we recite the Creed at Sunday Mass. The Church is holy and it is by means of the teachings of faith and the sacraments that we can be made holy by grace. This is what we believe and yet has there ever been a time when it was so very hard to believe? The Church is also composed of sinners; indeed, we are all sinners needing a Savior. But when it comes to our priests and bishops, we like to imagine that they have a direct line to heaven. They make little money, forsake a spouse and family and are at the immediate beck-and-call of their flocks. The lesson that Jesus gives his apostles with the Holy Thursday foot washing is that the greater they would become, the more they would have to humiliate themselves as the servants of all.
Catholicism insists that both bishops and priests should remain celibate— placing the love of the Mystical Body or the Church ahead of all other loves. At a time when most churches compromise on the moral teachings of Christ; the Catholic faith remains resolute about purity prior to marriage, about the permanence of marriage, about marriage as only a relationship between a man and a woman, about the nature of the marital act as open to the generation of children, and about the sanctity of human life. The loftier the moral message, the further the messenger might fall when he is exposed as duplicitous.
Our priests witness the marriages of couples in love, consecrating unions with the favor of God and of his Church. They baptize babies, transforming them from mere creatures of God into adopted sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. They absolve penitents from their sins, literally stealing the damned from the devil. At Mass they celebrate the sacrifice of Calvary so that we might offer ourselves with Jesus, the Lamb of God, as an acceptable oblation to the Father. They give us Holy Communion, rations from that promised shore to which we travel as spiritual pilgrims. Along with bishops, they offer confirmation, completing our baptisms so that we might be enriched by the gifts of the Spirit and made living temples of God. They anoint the sick, perpetuating the ministry of Jesus in bringing healing to the hurting among us. They bury the dead, preaching a message of hope that in Jesus love is stronger than death and victorious over the grave. The priest is at the center of everything Catholic. That is what makes the current scandal especially devastating. The faithful are rightly disappointed and upset. Our shepherds are facing a crisis in holiness.
Contagious Scandal & the Loss of Reputation
Any one priest signifies every priest. This collective appreciation has made the present crisis a damning one. When the laity look at their priests, they immediately wonder, “Could he be one of those priests?” While regarding only a few, these dark revelations of sin and crime are sufficient in damaging overall trust.
Men presumed as truthful revealed as duplicitous liars.
These are the same men appointed as preachers of the Gospel. The priest and pastor is the chief catechist of every parish and is entrusted with the faith formation of his people. What becomes of the message or the Good News when the messenger becomes a witness of bad or scandalous news? What becomes of his credibility when the mouthpiece of God not only stumbles in his witness but is unveiled as an agent of the devil’s anti-gospel? How can such a man speak to us about the truth when he has failed to put on the mind of Christ?
Men presumed as merciful exposed as sources for sin.
These are the men chosen to give flesh to the Divine Mercy in the ministry of the church. Who would want to go to confession to such rogues? Many might think that their sins pale in comparison to such reprobates. While the efficacy of the sacraments is assured; it is understandable that the faithful would feel stained or polluted by association with these men. Is it all just empty words and gestures? Compounding the problem, they sometimes substitute malice for mercy and draw others as accomplices into their lives of sin. How can such men draw us into the love of God when they do not have the heart of Christ?
Men presumed as healers caught as sadistic destroyers.
Jesus condemned the pharisees for placing unnecessary burdens upon good people. As an antidote he delivered the freedom and healing that belongs to the children of God. Priests were called to mend souls and to give hope, not to breach their victims from the family of God or to give them cause for despair. The miscreants in the news destroyed innocence and purposely misdirected the faith trajectory of people’s lives. They placed their own sexual gratification over sacred promises and the good of persons. How could they live with themselves, exchanging the joy of right relationship with God for a cruel transitory delight toward others? Even if there were a failure to love, did they not fear God?
Men presumed as pure are brought to light as defiled.
Priests are commissioned as eschatological signs of Christ’s kingdom. This is a basic premise behind the promise or vow of celibacy. Celibacy is not the same as chastity or virginity. Rather, it is a wondrous way of loving others. We are corporeal-spiritual composites, creatures of spirit and flesh. The purity of the body is supposed to immediately signify the virtuous nature of the soul, the existential resolution as one who loves the Lord so tremendously that it spills over in concern for the neighbor. As opposed to the pattern of the rich man going away sad because of his many possessions, it is the follower of Jesus who seeks to abandon earthly satisfaction so as to be rich in Christ. What happened to this singleness of purpose in these men? How is it that they could be satisfied with the carnal man when they were pledged to something greater, the one who lives in the Spirit?
Men presumed as holy are divulged as devils.
We are all called to be saints. That is our fundamental purpose in life. Christ as the new Adam comes into the world to restore an innocence that was lost by sin. The priest is charged as an instrument of the Lord to dispense the divine mysteries in making this objective possible. His ministrations allow us to enter in the saving paschal mystery. Here is where the sins of these men become a kind of blasphemy against all that is holy and good. Instead of realizing their role as sharers in Christ’s priesthood and extending his saving works, they look to the wimpish failure of the first Adam; indeed, worse than this, they play the role of the serpent. Do they not see how they have been thoroughly soiled as slaves to the devil? Have they stopped believing entirely?
We are told that a priest, even in mortal sin, can validly administer the sacraments. This is one of the great absurdities of faith and yet one necessary to insure the efficacy of the sacraments in the life of God’s people. Of course, while a bad priest might do some good, his bad character often sours the milk and corrupts or tears down what is built up. This dissimulation probably constitutes a special wound in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Our Lord is pained by the priest who is a cheat or hypocrite, even as he is supposed to be “another Christ” at the altar.
It remains a conundrum that a priest might take his people to the very gates of heaven but himself be unable to enter. While we might think that the graces of priesthood would make it easier for him to go to heaven; certain authorities have argued that it makes the prospect of hell more pressing and dangerous. Why? The more one is given, the more for which one will be held accountable. The priest knows better and cannot claim ignorance. Everything needed for salvation is immediately available. That makes any neglect inexcusable. Further, because he has been configured to Christ by his ordination, the devil targets him for every temptation and assault. At his altar, at his desk, in his car and in his bed he is always in the midst of a fierce battle with the prince demon of perdition. Priests who forget this will immediately stumble. The senses are especially targeted. The scandals of late all appeal to the flesh and sexuality. The sins committed are virtually unimaginable. Minds are clouded. Hearts are hardened. The devil will take any crack he can find to pierce the priest’s soul— smoking, drunkenness, gluttony, sloth, anger, jealousy, whatever. The devil may have failed in his temptation of Christ; but starting with his apostles and coming down through history to his priests and bishops of today, he has found men who sometimes falter and even become his property. Judas may not be the only bishop-priest in hell.
It is a terrible business when the weak link of faith is the shepherd. The weapons to hurt souls and to attack the Church then come from the very hands of the priest— hands that were consecrated for the chalice and the host. We as Catholics become our own worst enemies. It is at such times that we must remember that our faith is placed ultimately not in men but in God. We should also recall the saints, for theirs is the true legacy of the Church. Instead of running away, it becomes all the more imperative for God’s people to keep the faith and to demand fidelity and holiness of their priests. All sins might be forgiven, but the sins against innocence must not be forgotten. A reform of the Church will mean that some higher churchmen will have to step down, certain priests will have to be removed from ministry and others will have to embrace a heroic apostolate of penance and sanctity. This is not a time for window dressing but of a true moral reform, to deal both with a hostile secular modernity and a rigid clericalism that makes careerism and a fear of scandal into higher imperatives than protecting God’s flock from the robber and the wolf.
If we enter into the light (not afraid of what will be unmasked) and not in the darkness (where the roaches of sin hide), then we will truly walk with Christ. As opposed to the clamoring enemies of the Church who see the current scandal as the death knell for Catholicism, maybe it is an unavoidable summons to “grow up” and to become a more effective and genuine witness for Christ in the modern world? Divine providence is most unfathomable when God draws something of the good from the misdirected evil of men.
His Enemy Came and Sowed Weeds All through the Wheat
These are dark days for the Church. One of my friends even said, “These scandals make me feel ashamed to work for the Church.” I well understood. At every Mass a priest mentions and prays for his bishop by name. What if a bishop should disappoint you or you discover that one was likely a reprobate? I suspect a number of priests have paused or recently winced during the saying of the Eucharistic prayer. In any case, we are called to pray for the good and the bad, always remembering as priests that we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.
Jesus’ apostles often disappointed him— one even betrayed and despaired, taking his own life. I suppose the best of priests are wounded healers. Nevertheless, there are certain sins that cry out to heaven. I am reminded of one of the parables:
“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matthew 13:24-30)
Is it time for the harvest? It is so very hard to separate the weeds from the wheat. Indeed, the weeds threaten to strangle the wheat. We desperately want to see the weeds bundled and burned.
The Devil Made Me Do It
Alarmists about Vatican II regularly cite a quotation attributed to Pope Paul VI that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” While I neither have a naïve celebratory nor a pejorative view of the Council, I do feel that a diabolical attack upon the Church extending back to the very beginning of the incarnation is reaching a fever pitch in these latter days. The assault targets both clergy and lay. The complicit backdrop is a culture where sexual perversion is increasingly regarded as normative, where immigrant families are derided as criminals and subhumans and where mothers argue for the choice or right to murder their children.
Just as Christ is the fulfillment of the ancient promise for redemption given our first parents; the devil is all about broken promises. He corrupted Adam but failed when it came to Jesus and that failure fills him with an eternal spite. He numbs consciences to the truth about the sanctity of life and the dignity of persons. He hardens hearts, not merely against charity but even about what should be obvious in regards to compassion, mercy and decency. Truth is an immediate casualty but so is the love that beckons to us from the Cross. We become comfortable with our sins and selfishness. Divine commands become weak suggestions.
Christ was tempted but could not fall; however, we still struggle with the brokenness of the first Adam. Apart from Christ we are destined to fail. The world pampers our pride. The flesh entices our senses. The devil seeks to oppress and even to possess us. Satan has a burning hatred for us and the Church. He lost the war against Christ but continues to corrupt and steal in skirmishes for individual souls. We should not pretend that the devil is a fool. He knows that the best way to hurt the Church is to undermine her ministers— as goes the priesthood, so goes the Church. It was only a matter of time that this crisis would turn to the bishops given that they possess the fullness of priesthood.
Jesus redeemed us and yet some would return to their bondage of suffering, sin and death. We hear the devil speaking through the mouths of his slaves all the time: “I am not a saint so why try? May we always be going to hell but never get there. You can’t tell me what to do. If it feels good then do it. It is my body. Everyone is doing it! Those foreigners are all drug dealers and rapists! I’ll run over anyone who gets in my way! Going to church is a waste of my time. To hell with her brains, I want her for her body. We don’t want his kind around here. It only becomes a baby if you want it.” Yes, I am convinced that the devil has a hand in this abuse scandal; but, of course, none of the guilty can escape personal culpability.
Man Has Made Himself the Measure of All Things
Everything is salted with sensuality and eroticism: television, movies, music, books, art, the internet, etc. Fifty Shades of Grey becomes a bestselling book and it leads to sequels and films, affirming that pornography has truly gone mainstream. We feed our children to demons, not only with abortion but by eroticizing adolescents— dressing them as provocative adults, putting makeup on babies, romanticizing their juvenile relationships and allowing them to set the rules in our homes (giving them everything they want). We fill their heads with profane music and delight in their dancing, much as did lecherous Herod over Salome. Nevertheless, denying our own cooperation in sin, we point the finger at others when lines are crossed. Man imposes his strictures of fad as dictates over natural law, the height of lunacy. Few are willing to admit that gender confusion and same-sex unions have fashioned a twisted parody of marriage. A political correctness mislabels the clergy scandal so that it cannot be adequately addressed. We clamor about a few pedophiles when the problem remains a cabal of unsated homosexual pederasts.
Forbidden are a host of words and concepts like purity, chastity, virginity, temperance, obedience, duty, sacrifice, etc. Truth is no longer “what is” but simply “what we want it to be.” A Christian society has largely vanished. Many elements of the Church have given up the fight and have been seduced. Custody of the eyes is virtually impossible. If there remains any element of shame from damaged consciences and complicity in scandal then it is brushed aside by critics upon others. We find much of this transference in how the Church is faulted, especially her clergy. A problematical infestation of active homosexuals is ignored or tolerated because the culture wants to affirm and normalize homosexuality. Thus, the errant priests who largely target males are labeled as “pedophiles” when in actuality they are essentially repressed homosexuals acting out with other men or committing pederasty with older minors. (I must quickly add that this judgment should not diminish a respect for persons or insinuate that all homosexuals are a danger to minors. We need to be sympathetic to those who seek to be chaste and celibate, even if they should not be welcomed into holy orders.)
Where do we go from here? Silence is not the answer; indeed, it becomes part of the problem. Moving the men around is not the answer; like shipping the trash out to sea it only makes a problem for others somewhere else. Much of the damage evades healing, at least in this world. What is done cannot be undone. (Many of us hoped and prayed that this problem was largely behind us.) Now we know that most of us will be long in the grave before these troubled seas are calm again.
The late cardinal-priest Avery Dulles was a prophet about this problem, urging adequate protections for innocent priests but also alerting the bishops that they should not exclude themselves from inspection, reprimand and public penance. When these issues first began to make headlines the USCCB recommended a day of penance for the laity to pray upon this issue— but the criticism was rightfully made that the laity would prefer to see the bishops and priests on their knees. The situation with the disoriented and misbehaving clergy might have been a symptom of a sick society and a repressive Church but still people were right to argue about the blinders that some of the shepherds were wearing. I suppose the issue of fault is often connected to liability and lawyers. It should be about contrition, amendment of life and penance.
The revelations during the last few weeks have caused many of us who love the Church, clergy and laity alike, to weep as we have prayed. How can we win back the confidence of God’s people as credible witnesses to the Gospel? The flock has every right to be upset at the many allegations of misconduct and the passivity from bishops in protecting our children. Where was accountability in all this? How could anyone move up the ranks of the hierarchy when there were sordid rumors and even past settlements for sexual misbehavior? Many of us are shaking our heads; it is so unbelievable. And yet, like throwing gasoline into an open fire, there are many in authority claiming “I did not know” or “We thought we could morally reform the man” or “A few of the details need correction or clarification.” No one should be falsely charged, either in the commission of heinous acts or as concealing that which cries out to be known; however, missteps were made and we will never move forward while there is a refusal to accept responsibility for how matters were handled.
I’m Mad as Hell and I am Not Going to Take This Anymore!
Most bishops do not regularly live and work in parishes. They may not be fully aware of how angry people are. I am reminded of the 1976 movie Network where the television newscaster shouts, “You’ve got to say: I’m a human being, g-dammit! My life has value! So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”
As I said, the faithful have every right to be upset. They deserve good and holy priests. They should expect that their bishops and priests would love and protect them, especially the children. Will we see more empty pews? Will needed funds dry up? I cannot yet say, although I have heard more than one person say that he or she will be cutting back. As with the lawsuits and large monetary awards to victims and their lawyers— we could also end up victimizing the faithful in the pews and the needy in our communities. While the Church’s moral authority is compromised, we are still a voice and helping hand for the oppressed and the poor. What will happen to them if our resources are stripped away from the Church?
A Proposal for the Future
I have a hard time believing some of the things I am hearing. I do not want to believe it all. The deteriorating situation signifies bad news in terms of our credibility in proclaiming the Good News. Again, what must we do? Msgr. Charles Pope writes:
“As a lower-ranking priest I cannot issue demands or send binding norms to those in wider and upper ranks of the hierarchy, but I do want to say to God’s faithful how powerfully aware I am of their justified anger and agree with their insistence that something more than symbolic action or promises of future reform is necessary.”
At the end of his article at the National Catholic Register, he states:
“Remember, too, not every bishop or priest is equally to blame. Some are suffering as much as you are. However, no one, clergy or lay, should exempt himself from the task of summoning the Church to reform and greater holiness.”
That is exactly the case and I would like to applaud his courage and forthrightness in saying so.
It is my view that only something drastic will make any difference in the current climate of anger and distrust. I am only a priest and maybe a poor one, but here are my suggestions:
There should be a new review board given over entirely to the laity (men and women) where bishops could participate as observers and advisors (on ecclesial protocols as well as canonical and theological questions.)
While certain facets of professional secrecy and the seal of confession would have to be respected, there should be no secret agreements and a general transparency in the process.
There would need to be collaboration with the Holy See, not only to modify certain canons of the Church (returning to the explicit language of the 1917 code), but to create an independent canonical board and to facilitate canonical trials.
This review board should also become a clearing house for charges against clergy, especially bishops; priests would be able to share what they know without fear of reprisal in their dioceses.
There should be a general purge of those in the upper hierarchy who have tolerated active homosexuality or who have failed in their duty to protect vulnerable persons and the young from predator priests (through either silence or shuffling clergy elsewhere).
There should be a bill of rights for priests to insure justice and due process in determining innocence or guilt along with a provision for legal representation (an innocent priest should not be reduced to bankruptcy in trying to defend his good name while Church lawyers defend bishops).
Continue to insure that those who have abused or harmed minors would be permanently removed from Church ministries.
Insure that all programs of priestly formation also include regular psychological evaluation from a therapist who assents to Church teaching on human sexuality, not minimizing issues like consensual heterosexual relations (fornication), homosexual acts, masturbation, pornography and/or a general discomfort around women.
Forbid seminary formation to anyone who has committed homosexual acts and permanently remove any priests from ministry who violate their celibacy in committing them.
Suspend a priest from active ministry who has violated his celibacy with heterosexual acts, requiring either his laicization or that he spend five years doing penance in a monastic environment along with appropriate counseling prior to returning to ministry in another (arch)diocese.
Reparation for victims that brings some degree of healing and help to those harmed while not destroying the resources that rightly belong to those in the pews and to those assisted by our charity and justice initiatives. (Do we have to review the “corporate sole” model?)
Promote policies that both protect vulnerable persons and yet insure fair and just treatment for those accused.
As witnessed by Pope Francis, bishops should be required in all cases to live a very modest lifestyle with no more perks than those given to the poorest priest.
A penitential reform within the Church that would fully restore the Friday fasting and abstinence practices of the past for everyone and add particular acts of penance (over and above this) for all bishops and priests.
A daily campaign of praying the Rosary and/or the Liturgy of the Hours for the sanctification of priests, the fidelity of the Church and the conversion of sinners.
Restore the Prayer of St. Michael the Archangel to the liturgy, either at the end of the bidding prayers or at the conclusion of the Mass (Satan needs to be uprooted).
Reverse the Pyramid: Faithful Laity Can Save the Church
This is one of those situations where the good suffer along with the bad. The true “sensus fidelium” is not with dissenters, but with the faithful laity and they are the ones through their prayers and intervention who will now make a difference. Everyone should pray for the Church. Dialogue with the bishops and priests must be fair and open. This is not a situation the bishops can fix. As one person said to me, “Their credibility is shot!”
I noticed online that a few of the Hollywood celebrities have added their two cents (mostly negative) to this crisis in the Church. It would seem to me that when it comes to scandal they should be the last ones to talk, but I suppose it makes good fodder for deflection. Pointing to the sins of others takes the attention off one’s own. Years ago when these scandals first broke, I asked an elderly priest (who has since gone to God) about such matters. He explained that he was surprised about the child abuse but that the problem of errant priests was not new. However, he explained, the Church treated transgressions (as when a priest fell with a woman) entirely as moral ones, not focusing on psychological issues or any kind of pathology beyond the man’s control. It was presumed that after a reprimand, going to confession, a retreat and a verbal assurance of repentance— that a priest might be returned to ministry. Evidently, when it came to some of them, and particularly regarding disordered urges and an attraction to youth, no such assurances could be trusted.
There has been a great deal in the news about allegations of misconduct by Cardinal McCarrick. He has resigned from the College of Cardinals and Pope Francis has ordered him to pursue a “life of prayer and penance.” There is not much more that I can say about what has come out about Cardinal McCarrick. He was a great communicator and extremely charismatic. We clashed years ago when I openly opposed the practice of giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians. I am still deeply troubled about such policies, although the scope seems to be expanding to include invitations for those in adulterous unions to take the sacrament and even to receive absolution. How can the mortal sins of enabling murder or committing marital infidelity properly dispose one for the divine mysteries? I shake my head. Maybe I am too stupid to understand? I promised him years ago that I would pray for him daily. Now, more than before, I am dedicated to keeping that promise.
The Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report on sex abuse in the Catholic Church was hard to read. I became overwhelmed by grief and wept. How could this happen? Priests are called “Father” and fathers are supposed to protect, nurture and heal their children. My next emotion was anger. Men broke their promises and they lied about it. Others were so afraid of scandal and litigation that they apparently kept silent. Was this the Church for which I sought to be a priest by entering the seminary 40 years ago? Our faith is ultimately not in weak men but in Jesus who is God come down from heaven to save us. Given all the negativity and the painful stories, how is it affecting the people in the pews? (I am planning a monthly parish program on the saints. That is where we find the real legacy of the Church. We will focus on those who faithfully ran the race and won their crowns.)
Years ago when I heard that Cardinal Wuerl was coming to Washington I was delighted as I had been a fan of his catechism, The Teaching of Christ, going back to my college seminary days. His little book, The Mass: The Glory, the Mystery, the Tradition, co-authored with Mike Aquilina, is a real gem and a useful tool in teaching about the Eucharistic liturgy. As one of his priests, it is hard to hear all the criticism from his time in Pittsburgh. It seems to me that he did so very much to make a positive difference in protecting children. Did he stumble at some point? I am certain that there are many families and victims appreciative for what he tried to do for them. There has been some talk that the Grand Jury Report got a number of particulars wrong. I am not in possession of all the facts and so I will leave it up to others to figure out. I will keep him in my prayers, especially in the Mass, and urge our good people in the pews not to despair.
I am reminded of John Cardinal Newman’s work on the Arian crisis and St. Athanasius when so many of the bishops had fallen into heresy. He concluded that in the fourth century the laity were the heroes who had saved the day for the true faith. While the Lord will be the one to ultimately separate the weeds from the wheat or the goats from the lambs, we need to trust our good lay men and women today. I am not talking about dissenters but the homeschooling family, the teacher in the parish school, the volunteers running the bible study, the Blue Army lady always rattling off her beads in the lonely church, the teenager eager to serve Mass, the Knights of Columbus men who actively live out charity in communities, the virtuous souls who march for life and stand outside abortion clinics praying for the unborn and their parents, the reader faithful to his service, the altar guild ladies who help set up for the liturgy, etc. Allowing the laity to take the lead may be hard for bishops as it seems to be a surrender of their authority; however, in truth this is precisely the kind of humiliation that may restore their moral jurisdiction as servants of the Most High God.
Statement from the Archdiocese of Washington to Pastors
Many of you have addressed the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report, as well as the Archbishop McCarrick matter in homilies or comments to your parishioners. Cardinal Wuerl requests that you not shy away from addressing these matters again in a spirit and manner that you feel appropriate. He also requests that you include in your Prayers of the Faithful the following intercession:
“For young people and our most vulnerable that they remain safe and protected, and for those survivors of abuse whether by power or violence, especially by the clergy who have not lived up to their call to holiness. Let us pray to the Lord.”
Finally, as a concluding prayer after the Prayers of the Faithful, he requests the following Prayer for Healing Victims of Abuse from the USCCB:
God of endless love, ever caring, ever strong, always present, always just: You gave your only Son
to save us by the blood of his cross.
Gentle Jesus, shepherd of peace, join to your own suffering the pain of all who have been hurt in body, mind, and spirit by those who betrayed the trust placed in them.
Hear our cries as we agonize over the harm done to our brothers and sisters. Breathe wisdom into our prayers, soothe restless hearts with hope, steady shaken spirits with faith. Show us the way to justice and wholeness, enlightened by truth and enfolded in your mercy.
Holy Spirit, comforter of hearts, heal your people’s wounds and transform our brokenness. Grant us courage and wisdom, humility and grace, so that we may act with justice and find peace in you.
One definition of humor is this: “complying with the wishes of someone in order to keep them content or happy with us, no matter how unreasonable such wishes might be.” It is in this vein that we might understand God and heaven as having a sense of humor. It may be that in the kingdom that which is serious and that which is comic somehow coalesce or become one.
There is much about the truth of Christ which consoles and challenges, and yet, simultaneously there is much that seems absurd. Creation itself is not immune from the comic. It should be warned that trying to discern this element in God might inadvertently lead to a kind of cynicism. For instance, focusing on God as the author of creation, I have heard it remarked: “Why did God make the most fertile females in the world, only sixteen years old?” Teens that are least able to deal with the needs of children easily have babies while established and mature women struggle to have offspring. Those who work with crisis pregnancies often shake their heads in bewilderment. We can laugh or we can cry about it. God’s ways often seem unfathomable. It is almost as if intelligent design took a wrong turn.
Turning to salvation history, the ministry of Jesus begins with a humorous oddity. His mother tells him that they have run out of wine at a wedding banquet. Our Lord is curt, what has this to do with me— my time has not yet come? Mary tells the servants to do as he says. He has water poured into jars. The stewards are already imagining the disappointment of the gathering when they get water instead of wine. But miraculously water becomes wine; indeed it is the best wine so far. Who would have thought such a thing? Surprise!
If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out! If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! Call no man your father! You must be born again! He who loses his life will save it! He who does not hate mother and father is not worthy of me! Let the dead bury their dead! Hebraic hyperbole gives an emphasis to the demands of Christ, but still they seem crazy to our ears. If we were to view such matters in a literal way, we would find ourselves set firmly within a Monty Python script.
There are some elements of the Gospel that readily lend themselves to joking. Even the questions of Jesus can be funny. A blind man comes up to Jesus and our Lord asks, “What do you want?” Is it not obvious? It may be he was hoping that someone would ask for sins to be forgiven, but the given response was more than likely. He says, “I want to see!” No surprise in the response here, only in the question.
When a woman is caught in adultery, our Lord tells the crowd, let the one without sin cast the first stone. The text relates that they all walk away and that our Lord, who could condemn her, forgives her instead. A contemporary joke version has a stone sailing past Jesus and plunking the woman on the head, knocking her down. Surprised, Jesus looks around and then says, “Mother, I told you to stay home!” (This is a Catholic joke as we understand Mary to be the sinless or immaculate Virgin Mary.)
Our Lord tells parables that are familiar to us but which were ridiculous to his first listeners. Which among you would not leave his ninety-nine sheep to go in search of the one lost lamb? Later, he speaks about the shepherd rejoicing in having found it. However, in truth, most shepherds would have written it off. Why risk all the rest to thieves and wolves? And yet, this good shepherd regards the least of his flock as having a value commensurate with all the rest. This is crazy but it is part of the irony or humor of God. Then there is the story of the good housewife. She tears her house apart in search of a lost coin. When she finds it she has a party with her friends that probably amounted to more than the coin’s value. Again, his listeners, probably frugal women, would have thought the whole business was crazy or nonsensical.
Take the last place at gatherings. You must become like little children. Sell all that you have and follow me. The one who would be the greatest must become the least servant of all. Our Lord never lets up. The absurdity is amplified as the topics become more grave or important. Thousands have followed him to an isolated location. When asked to dismiss them so that they might find sustenance, he tells his apostles to feed the crowd themselves. All they have are a few fish and a little bread. Nevertheless the multitude are fed and there is food left over.
His humor is so severe that one day most of his followers walk away. He says that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood then we can have no life in us. Today, the guys in the white suits would be coming to take him away. And yet, it is precisely this Eucharist that has sustained the Church for two thousand years. Indeed, these are the rations from the promised shore to which we travel as pilgrims of faith. We must become a parable people. We must become fools for Christ.
Everyone likes to receive a gift or reward, so Jesus assures us of a litany of favors. Our Lord gives a series of benedictions, assuring us that we will receive the kingdom, will be comforted, inherit the land, have justice satisfied, know mercy, see God, become God’s children, and one more thing—know persecution, including torture and murder. It sounded pretty good until that last bit. But such is the humor of God. “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven” (Matthew 5:11-12).
“For as I see it, God has exhibited us apostles as the last of all, like people sentenced to death, since we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and human beings alike. We are fools on Christ’s account, but you are wise in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are poorly clad and roughly treated, we wander about homeless and we toil, working with our own hands. When ridiculed, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we respond gently. We have become like the world’s rubbish, the scum of all, to this very moment “(1 Corinthians 4:9-13). Our Lord writes his straight lines with our crooked ones. He shows his greatness, not by calling the best of men but making the least and the weakest into his ministers and messengers.
These are the ones that make up the great saints of heaven. Yes, the joke is on us, but it is a joke that brings not brief laughter but eternal joy. The infinite and omnipotent God has filled his house with the likes of thieves, prostitutes and traitors. Just as he could change water to wine and wine and bread into his flesh and blood, he can transform the weakest of sinners into the greatest of saints. I suspect, albeit in a spiritual manner, there erupts a celestial guffaw that the children of heaven appreciate and which leaves the devils of hell scratching their heads. They do not get it and that is why they have cast themselves outside the gates to paradise.
The greatest humor or ironic sign of contradiction is found in the heart of the incarnation. It is here that we discover the full scope of infinite power, love and humor. The perfect Spirit, the Creator of this and all dimensions and universes, the one who is truly omnipotent and omniscient, the one that stands outside and yet sustains all that he has made— makes himself almost infinitely small, weak and subject to all the petty jealousies and enmity of humanity. The devil is the first to distance himself from God in utter disbelief— something ridiculous and impossible happens— the great Unmoved Mover moves… and the Word becomes flesh.
Where is heaven? How big is heaven? What does it look like? Many past believers imagined heaven in the sky, particularly since Jesus ascended and Mary was assumed into heaven. There was also the biblical presumption that hell or hades was under the earth. Artists have imagined heaven with cathedral like buildings, where the streets are paved with gold and everything is illumined with an interior light. As for how big, we imagine a vastness further than the eye can see. God would certainly insure enough space for all who would call it home. While God and the angels as spirits take up no space or extension; Jesus and the Blessed Mother have glorified bodies, just as the saints will possess. These bodies will have to reside somewhere. We sometimes speak of a new heaven and a new earth. However, I doubt there will ever be a celestial surveyor who could determine the boundaries of heaven or measure the jurisdiction. How big is it? It is big enough. I have often pondered the question in reference to our final end. We will live within the Trinity. Any way we turn, we will see God.
Physicists speak about the relativity of time and space. It is my supposition that when it comes to heaven, this relativity is taken to another level entirely with a signification hinted in the sacraments. When we speak of the Eucharist, we assert that Christ is present in his person and in his saving activity. The entire paschal mystery (our Lord’s betrayal, scourging, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension) is made present in the liturgical action and in the consecrated species. Just as a taste of heaven can be condensed to the sacrament, we might imagine heaven as a spiritual gravity well, where the providence of God is fully realized and we are offered a share in eternal life. This new signification or meaning makes the question about size inconsequential. All of creation and salvation history meets in this singularity of the kingdom. One might argue that material creation mimics this situation with its initial singularity, the release of energy with the big bang, and then the unfolding of the universe. God sustains both his material and spiritual creation.
Angels are discussed as spiritual creatures without physical bodies. Stories about full-bodied angels are interpreted as phantasms fashioned so as to relate to men. Like God, they are perfect spirits that exist outside of time and space. However, God can give them liberty to become involved with human affairs. Similarly, God as a perfect spirit can reveal himself to us by entering the human family through the incarnation. The angels and the souls of the dead know duration but are outside of time. It has been conjectured that with glorified bodies, the clock might start ticking again as matter and time are partners to each other. But, having said this we really do not know much about the spiritualized matter or immortality of glorified men and women (where souls and bodies are reconnected). The risen Christ appears in locked rooms and to men on the road— then just as suddenly he disappears and shows up somewhere else. What would the space or dimensions of heaven matter if we could all travel at the speed of thought?
Much of this reflection is speculation. What do we know for sure? We have the promise of Christ.
“In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be” (John 14:2-3).
Children used to be the only ones to ask the question, “Do the saints in heaven wear clothes?” However, adults are increasingly asking me the same question. Dr. Kreeft refers to visions from private revelation: “They say that it is hard to classify the blessed as either clothed or naked. If clothed, it is as if the clothing were a part of the body, an organic growth, rather than an accidental, foreign covering: it reveals rather than conceals, and it is natural and necessary rather than artificial and accidental. If naked, it is shameless and not arousing erotic desires.”
I recall reading a speculative fiction paperback years ago where the people destined for heaven found themselves embodied. As they went up to heaven their bodies began to change— principally their sexual organs began to shrink and disappear— making them appear as small children but without sexual passion or interest. Those who went to hell seemed to go through a reverse process and became more unruly and manipulated by their desires and sin. I really do not think that is the prospect that awaits us after death. If our Lord could even carry the wounds of his ordeal in his hands, feet and side; then I think it is more likely that we will continue to be who we are, albeit no longer subject to concupiscence or the need to propagate the species. Indeed, the need for intimacy will no longer require the joining of bodies but will be satisfied with the beatific vision and union with God. Our souls, if not immediately then at the final consummation, will be rejoined to our bodies glorified and made immortal. Naked or clothed it will make no difference because there will be no shame, just as it was with Adam and Eve in the primordial garden before the fall.
We will be recognizable and yet different. Imagine if no one were overweight or starving, weakened by age or handicapped, and no longer anxious about tomorrow or weary from the world’s betrayals and difficulties. It is no wonder that the women at the tomb did not immediately recognize Jesus. Remember, they had last seen his scourged and crucified body taken down from the Cross. Now, suffering and death no longer has any part of him… this is the smiling Jesus… this is the Christ of joy!
There are several instances where the Bible describes the vestiture of heaven as white, indeed when it comes to the Transfiguration (indicative of Christ’s coming victory over sin and death and his resurrection), his clothes are whiter than any bleacher could make them— almost like light itself. It would make sense that believers would suppose that those who follow our Lord would be similarly attired. “After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him” (Matthew 17:1-3). Light and truth are interconnected themes.
Clothes are worn in the garden because of a sense of shame or inadequacy. Clothes are still worn, not only for warmth and comfort, but also to project something about ourselves— an image that may not always be in conformity with the truth. Some wear tight clothing for reasons of seduction. Others wear loose or baggy clothing to disguise shape. Still others wear clothes that inspire or impress others. Note that the new Adam is virtually stripped when he undergoes his passion and the victory of the Cross. I suspect any clothing that we may wear or appear to wear in the coming kingdom will not disguise but rather show precisely who we are and what we are about.
A parable is told about a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. After his initial guests made excuses so as not to attend, he sends out a general invitation. “‘Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’ The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:9-14). It is important for us to remember that the wedding garments were readily available and given at the door. This one person entered the feast unconcerned about honoring the king’s son and lacking any gratitude for the invitation. There is no answer he can make. He does not belong. He is thrown out. Note that he is tied up. Turning to Jesus, outside the feast there is only bondage and despair— there is only sin and hell. The wedding garment, these gowns of white for the elect, signify honoring Christ and that we are participants in the wedding banquet of the Lamb.
Note that brides still often wear white dresses or gowns. Those who attend the heavenly banquet are more than guests, they are members of the Church and the Church is the bride of Christ. White is a precious sign of light, purity and marriage. Groom and Bride wear white, indeed, the bride’s gown has been washed clean in the blood of the Lamb. “Then one of the elders spoke up and said to me, ‘Who are these wearing white robes, and where did they come from?’ I said to him, ‘My lord, you are the one who knows.’ He said to me, ‘These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation 7:13-14).
There is an old saying, clothes make the man. If this is the case, then wearing Christ means embracing the new man. We are not what we were before and yet, in a sense, we have become our true self— what God has wanted us to become from the very beginning. The saints of heaven will be spiritually clothed in Christ, in whom nothing is hidden and where truth reigns. “Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection” (Colossians 3:12-14).
I remember many years ago a man who so loved his car that he made the news by being buried in it. He literally tried to take it with him. This stands in stark comparison to a priest I knew who was buried almost naked in a cardboard box. The only thing he took with him was a fork as a symbol of his readiness for the banquet table of heaven. The discussion here about possessions is a bit odd because we should all know that we leave this world as we came into it, naked and without earthly belongings. The only treasure we can take with us into the kingdom after death is the gift of Christ. If we have God then what more could any of us ever want. If the question is about stuff in heaven, then it is certainly possible but I doubt there will be ownership as we now experience it. Stuff will be insignificant. We give material things value in this world. But what happens when the only prize that measures is the greatest good, God, himself?
The formation of saints begins on earth, not in heaven. The rich man lacked charity for the beggar Lazarus at his door. “Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented’”(Luke 16:25). The beggar was regarded as a thing of no importance, not a person of infinite value. He was literally a door mat, walked over each time the rich man entered his home. Indeed, worse than that, we are told the dogs licked his sores. He had been reduced to dog food. The rich man in this story is condemned, not simply because he was rich, but because he had no real or practical love for Lazarus. We are told that the Lord identifies himself with the poor and the oppressed. A failure to love the beggar was a failure to love God. The reward given to Lazarus and the punishment suffered by the rich man is an expression of divine justice.
Scripture tells us that we have a jealous God. “‘No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon’” (Matthew 6:24). Jesus encounters a young man who has kept the commandments and desires spiritual perfection. “Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven’” (Matthew 19:21-23). It appears that the young rich man is invited to be a thirteenth apostle. But he goes away sad because his possessions are many. Jews traditional view themselves as blessed by God according to wealth, land and progeny. The kingdom of Christ turns this reasoning on its head. The young rich man could keep the rules, but giving everything to the poor is a level of mastery with charity that he has yet to acquire. It would mean putting aside worldly standing and the personal security that he has come to trust. It takes faith and courage to live for the kingdom.
The apostles are perplexed by this episode. They might have been poor or hard working men, but they probably also had dreams about being self-sufficient and knowing earthly security. The question is asked, is there any hope for the rich man? “Jesus looked at him [now sad] and said, ‘How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.’ Those who heard this said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ And he said, ‘What is impossible for human beings is possible for God.’ Then Peter said, ‘We have given up our possessions and followed you.’ He said to them, ‘Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive back an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come’” (Luke 18:24-30). If we will not readily let go, death itself will force our possessions from our clasped hands.
We will have the Lord and belong to God. “‘Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be’” (Matthew 6:19-21).
If we were to put anything before God in the life to come then we would not find ourselves in heaven. Even the “self” must be given to God so that it may be perfected and made holy. Years ago I watched a television musical based on the story of The Littlest Angel about a shepherd boy who finds himself in heaven. He loves the things of earth and has a hard time letting go. It is only when he takes his recently recovered box made from scraps of wood and filled with the treasures of earth (two white stones, three blue eggs, a dry butterfly, a starling’s feather, etc.) and presents it as a gift to the Christ Child that he is ready to take his proper place in heaven. (As a bit of humor, pockets are sewed into his celestial gown because, since there is detachment from things, no one there has pockets.) He trades his earthly treasures for the one who will rest in the feedbox of the manger.
We may speak of possessing heaven, but in truth heaven will possess us. God is goodness, beauty, truth, life and grace. We will not know these attributes as things but as a person. The Lord will share himself with us but we will never be able to utterly consume him.
“When Saul saw the Philistine camp, he grew afraid and lost heart completely. He consulted the LORD; but the LORD gave no answer, neither in dreams nor by Urim nor through prophets. Then Saul said to his servants, ‘Find me a medium through whom I can seek counsel.’ His servants answered him, ‘There is a woman in Endor who is a medium.’ So he disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and set out with two companions. They came to the woman at night, and Saul said to her, ‘Divine for me; conjure up the spirit I tell you.’ But the woman answered him, ‘You know what Saul has done, how he expelled the mediums and diviners from the land. Then why are you trying to entrap me and get me killed?’ But Saul swore to her by the LORD, ‘As the LORD lives, you shall incur no blame for this.’ ‘Whom do you want me to conjure up?’ the woman asked him. ‘Conjure up Samuel for me,’ he replied. When the woman saw Samuel, she shrieked at the top of her voice and said to Saul, ‘Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!’ But the king said to her, ‘Do not be afraid. What do you see?’ ‘I see a god rising from the earth,’ she replied. ‘What does he look like?’ asked Saul. ‘An old man is coming up wrapped in a robe,’ she replied. Saul knew that it was Samuel, and so he bowed his face to the ground in homage. Samuel then said to Saul, ‘Why do you disturb me by conjuring me up?’ Saul replied: ‘I am in great distress, for the Philistines are waging war against me and God has turned away from me. Since God no longer answers me through prophets or in dreams, I have called upon you to tell me what I should do.’ To this Samuel said: ‘But why do you ask me, if the LORD has abandoned you for your neighbor? The LORD has done to you what he declared through me: he has torn the kingdom from your hand and has given it to your neighbor David. Because you disobeyed the LORD’s directive and would not carry out his fierce anger against Amalek, the LORD has done this to you today. Moreover, the LORD will deliver Israel, and you as well, into the hands of the Philistines. By tomorrow you and your sons will be with me, and the LORD will have delivered the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.’ Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground, in great fear because of Samuel’s message. He had no strength left, since he had eaten nothing all that day and night. Then the woman came to Saul and, seeing that he was quite terror-stricken, said to him: ‘Remember, your maidservant obeyed you: I took my life in my hands and carried out the request you made of me. Now you, in turn, please listen to your maidservant. Let me set out a bit of food for you to eat, so that you are strong enough to go on your way.’ But he refused, saying, ‘I will not eat.’ However, when his servants joined the woman in urging him, he listened to their entreaties, got up from the ground, and sat on a couch. The woman had a stall-fed calf in the house, which she now quickly slaughtered. Then taking flour, she kneaded it and baked unleavened bread. She set the meal before Saul and his servants, and they ate. Then they got up and left the same night.” (1 Samuel 28:5-25).
If genuine, then Samuel was a ghost summoned by a medium. He would be regarded as a hero of faith and today as a saint. However, he would have come from the limbo of the fathers as Christ had not yet open the way to true heaven. Genuine or not, the manner in which the ghost was called forth was a violation of God’s law. I suspect that he appeared, not because of the medium but rather by God’s permission to announce judgment against Saul.
Jews and Christians alike are forbidden to use mediums, oracles or fortune-tellers (see Deuteronomy 18:11 and Leviticus 19:31). God was already displeased with Saul. Now Saul had sealed his fate by employing the services of a witch.
Many of us are intrigued by ghost stories. Protestants more so than Catholics, tend to regard them as either pure fiction or as demonic deception. Many Catholics have an open mind about such phenomena. Indeed, some of the stories seem to reaffirm our teachings about purgatory. If there be ghosts, from where do they come? This topic can be somewhat dangerous. We are warned not to be obsessed by such preoccupations. Séances and Ouija boards are condemned, not merely as superstition but as a slippage into witchcraft or the occult. Catholics pray for the dead and invoke the saints to intercede for us. However, we do not seek direct two-way communication. The proper focus of all prayer, even sanctoral orations, is always almighty God. There are stories of the saints appearing and speaking with the living, as in the life of Joan of Arc. However, there is a difference between what God permits and what men might seek. The danger is demonic subterfuge and lies. There are cases where supposedly demons masqueraded as the souls of the dead.
An article, “Fourteen Questions About Heaven,” by Dr. Peter Kreeft speaks of three types of ghosts:
Ghosts from heaven;
Ghosts from purgatory; and
Ghosts from hell.
I have already made some reference to the first. There are numerous other cases in the long history of the Church. These are the apparitions of visionaries, often with messages. Like the Virgin Mary, they always direct us back to Jesus and implore repentance and faith. We are urged to pray and to remain steadfast. They are not subject to diabolic necromancy or sorcery. They would never promote rebellion against the Lord or his Church. Neither would they tolerate or legitimize immorality. If a paranormal entity is malicious then it is not from heaven.
Kreeft speaks about the saints who come with a message or warning from heaven. I have always emphasized the ones from purgatory who need our prayers. The third type has undergone much speculation but about which many of us were unsure. If there were an evil or malicious haunting, I would usually regard it as demonic and not originating with a human soul or ghost. However, those who speak about the need to heal the family tree and certain forms of deliverance would join Kreeft in speaking about ghosts from hell. While the living can be haunted by past trauma and memory, I would have thought the damned souls too helpless and restrained by God to intervene in earthly affairs, but I may be wrong.
I remember a story told years ago about a convent of women that felt assured about the saintliness of a particularly pious nun who had recently died. One day while at chapel in prayer, her ghost walked toward the altar. Turning to her fellow sisters, she told them, “Pray for me.” She then placed her hand print in some wet mortar used to repair the wall and disappeared. Presumptuous of her personal holiness, correction was offered; she needed their prayers as a soul in purgatory.
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.
I had two posts on Facebook about the nomination and proceedings around Judge Brett Kavanaugh. 
Blogger Priest 