• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • 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.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Dennis on Ask a Priest
    Dom on Ask a Priest
    SLHR on Ask a Priest
    J on Ask a Priest
    Frank on Ask a Priest

Protecting Ugandan Girls

ugonda

“We can end child sex trafficking in Uganda. The bad guys aren’t smarter than us. We can end this. We can outsmart them. We can beat them to the kids. We can protect them.” (CLICK the picture to read the article.)

Celibacy is the Solution

Author’s Note: I am amazed at how much negative feedback, especially from non-celibates, was sent to me about this article– much unworthy of publishing.  It demonstrates to me that there is a real and dangerous prejudice against Christian celibacy and a reductionism from some that minimizes its importance and value.  I was happy to see that a brother priest, who is actively involved with our archdiocesan seminary in Washington, DC, has shared positive thoughts on the topic that are similar to my own.  Fr. Carter Griffin has written a wonderful article first published in FIRST THINGS and now posted at the CERC website: “Celibacy: The Answer, Not the Problem.”

var38While there are trite sayings to the contrary, simple answers are not always the best answers.  This is particularly the case with the assumption of some that the impetus for the clergy abuse crisis is the imposition of an “unhealthy” and “unnatural” celibacy. Despite the deceptive eroticism and deprecation of both celibacy and purity that permeates our modern culture, there is nothing malignant or disordered about celibacy. Acknowledging a supernatural component to Christian celibacy, it is a manner of living and loving that is completely natural.  Given the current scandals, celibacy is not the problem, but the solution.  The answer that many are seeking to our troubles is not the wholesale allowance of married clergy.  That would not resolve issues of abuse; indeed, it would introduce a host of new difficulties like marital infidelity and divorce.  This is not to say that men in good and holy unions could not serve as faithful Catholic priests; all I am asserting is that this is no miracle solution to the Church’s ills.

What is the real solution?  We should demand that celibate priests remain faithful to their sacred promise.  If priests behave themselves then there will be no incidents of child abuse, assaulted nuns, illegitimate children and homosexual liaisons. Just as the Church implores married couples to keep their vows; our priests should do the same and thus give a witness and proclamation devoid of duplicity.

While we cannot demand that all heterosexual candidates for priesthood must be virgins, we can certainly establish it as the Church’s preference.  Sexual activity prior to a life of priestly celibacy is not a positive element in their formation.  We cannot make mortal sin a prerequisite for the sacrament of holy orders.  I have known seminarians so tragically shadowed by memories of heterosexual promiscuity that they felt compelled to discern out of formation for holy orders.

I still do not buy the argument that repressed but active homosexuality is not a major factor in the current abuse scandal.  There are few pedophile cases and way too many instances of homosexual pederasty.  Given this assessment, I think the Church should have a general prohibition against “active” homosexuals in formation and priesthood. When I say active, I mean “one strike and you are out.”  We cannot give homosexual relations the same moral value or weight given to heterosexuality.  Homosexual acts are always sinful; heterosexual relations in the marital act are holy and befitting the plan of God.

Given this distinction, I would argue that a priest who falls with a woman might be forgiven by the Church and returned to ministry.  Prudence and discipline would demand a period of real penance and soul-searching.  That is why I have suggested a few years of suspension in such cases where a man might deliberate with professionals and speak to the Lord about the status of his vocation.  If his priesthood should prove salvageable, then he could reassigned, preferably to another diocese.  Admittedly, some would disagree with me but the problem here is no disorientation and granted consensuality, not a matter of abuse.  It is simply, albeit tragically, a case of mortal sin that can be absolved in the confessional.

The matter of an immoral heterosexual liaison becomes more problematical if there should be offspring.  Whatever determination is made, the priest in this situation has an obligation to both claim the child (fatherly relationship) and to help provide financial support.  Forgiveness does not dismiss the need for restitution.  While discretion is required, there should be no cases of women being paid off by dioceses and children growing up without knowing the identity of their fathers.   Hopefully, God’s people might be forgiving when such stories are inadvertently exposed.  I do not foresee published lists of priests who have had children out of wedlock.

Christian celibacy cannot be identified with the variation in Buddhism which is directed toward spiritual enlightenment.  Christian celibacy is not the same as that practiced in Hinduism for the sake of greater physical strength and longevity. Christian celibacy finds no counterpart in Islam which utterly renounces celibacy. Christian celibacy cannot be compared with the secular or humanistic version that temporarily utilizes celibacy to target one’s energies and purpose toward economic or business success.  More than chastity, Christian celibacy is regarded in Catholicism as a gift given by God and then returned to God by the disciple.  It is a manner of fulfilling the request that Jesus gave to the rich man who went away sad because his possessions were many.  It is the ultimate response to the twofold commandment of Christ.  The Christian celibate loves the Lord with his whole heart, body and soul.  That same love spills out into a loving service of others.  Married Christians can also keep this commandment, although that divine love is first showered upon one’s spouse and children.  It is a love and commitment shared.  The celibate priest sees himself as married to the Church. He belongs wholly to the Lord and to his people.

It is somewhat ironic but true that even the necessary measures put into place to thwart the abuse of minors has damaged the actualization of this celibate love.  The priest’s relationship to the Church is spousal.  His relationship to those in the pews is paternal. He is to exhibit a spiritual fatherhood in his ministration of the sacraments and pastoral care.  Unfortunately, so as to protect the young, their access to their priests is seriously undermined.  A terminal distrust and suspicion has walled the priest off from many of his spiritual children— thus hampering spiritual bonding, counsel and even (in some cases) their access to sacraments like confession.

Despite the negative propaganda and the ill-informed solutions that attack the heart of the priesthood, celibacy remains one of the great treasures of the Western priesthood. We should not be quick to throw it away.  Here is the big surprise for many critics— most celibate priests remain happy with their vocation.

Washington Suffers Blunt of the Scandal

1280px-2013_cathedral_of_st._matthew_the_apostleAlthough the recent disclosures in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have fanned the flames of controversy about abuse by clergy in the Catholic Church, it must be admitted that the Archdiocese of Washington has suffered the most serious blunt of the scandal.  One of our cardinals faces censure under a Vatican investigation and the other stepped down after criticism of his efforts to stem abuse were judged insufficient and as lacking transparency.  Given the situation, Washington may be the one “hot potato” local church that no bishop will want.  Unlike other archdioceses, our numbers are modest and the prominence of the church here is due to the status as the nation’s capital.  There are also particular problems with this jurisdiction given that many politicians from other states and dioceses live and work here.  Can the ordinary of Washington establish censures or regulations over parishioners that conflict with the rules held by their proper bishops?  This is one of the reasons acknowledged why pro-abortion politicians are not refused Holy Communion in Washington.  Some national bishops refuse to take such measures and others have dictated this policy to their priests.  Of course, it can be argued that there is no middle-ground because a lack of a prohibition already takes sides.  Cardinal McCarrick often spoke about this, saying that he did not want to force confrontations at the altar.  However, matters were exasperated when he befriended the late Senator Ted Kennedy over protests from organizations like the American Life League.  When challenged about it, he argued that the archdiocese and “the Church” needed these politicians to support us on other issues.  While only a parish priest, my objection was that if a child is destroyed, for that human person there are no more issues.  It also seemed to stand in stark contrast from the guidance given by Cardinal Ratzinger who later became Pope Benedict XVI.    Under Cardinal Wuerl, the policy of not withholding Holy Communion became official.  The only possible exception would be when the communicant was deliberately inciting a controversial confrontation, as with wearing pro-abortion shirts and hats in church.

It must be said that with speeches and rallies, both cardinals were on the record as pro-life and as opposed to abortion.  The issue was about tactics or measures.  Why would I mention this in a post that centers on the abuse scandal?  The reason is this— abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse.  Those that lament and parade the sins of churchmen are duplicitous and silent when it comes to the torture and murder of millions of children in the womb.  Along with the eroticism that saturates contemporary society, the issue of child abuse is exasperated by a culture of hedonism and death.

This past Tuesday, Cardinal Wuerl apologized for a “lapse in memory” about allegations of abuse against Cardinal McCarrick.  My heart sank when I read his letter to the priests.  At a time when people have little or no trust in the Church, we did not need this.  Cardinal Wuerl was regarded as the most proactive in removing credibly charged clergy from ministry.  He is not just one bishop among many.

The upset can be summarized as having a two-fold source:

  1. The acts of abuse perpetrated by clergy; and
  2. Efforts to deny and/or to conceal these criminal acts.

Cardinal McCarrick has been ordered by Pope Francis to pursue “a life of prayer and penance.”  I suspect that many Catholics want more than this.  Many want an explanation and an end to deflection and excuses.  What have we gotten instead?  Despite evidence and multiple charges and victims (adults and youth), Cardinal McCarrick has denied the allegations.

The problem cannot be resolved until the homosexual underpinnings are acknowledged.  Falsehood cannot be remedied by silence or even just by penance; it requires a cleansing in the waters of truth.  How could a man unfaithful to his promise of celibacy find himself promoted to the cardinal’s hat— which is the shortlist for papal candidates?  People want explanations and solutions.  They want transparency in the present and reliable assurances about the future.  They want their clergy to be holy men who seek not to harm or to exploit but to bring healing and mercy.  They do not want princes but servants.

Fr. Ken Roberts, REST IN PEACE

154549133261636553bFr. Kenneth Roberts died Thursday, December 20, 2018 around 4:50 ET in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Born and raised in England, he later became an American citizen.  He was 89 years of age.  A charismatic and articulate priest, he easily made his early reputation as a stark defender and teacher of Catholic teaching.  (Back in 1989, I got to meet him over a dinner in Birmingham, Alabama.)  At the time he was filming programs locally for Mother Angelica and EWTN.  His book PLAYBOY TO PRIEST was one of the works that influenced many young men to discern a vocation to the priesthood, myself included. Another notable book was NOBODY CALLS IT SIN ANYMORE.  He is well remembered for his books, tapes, television appearances, retreats and support for the Medjugorje apparitions and messages.

His defunct website noted the following:  “Throughout his life, Father Ken has been especially devoted to our Blessed Mother, realizing that the love and graces of her Immaculate Heart are the surest and most expedient way into the saving Sacred Heart of her son Jesus Christ. Father Roberts has dedicated his priesthood to the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

Although he traveled a great deal, he was a priest (ordained in 1966) from the Diocese of Dallas, Texas.  Given credible charges of misconduct with minors, he was suspended from ministry in 1998 (November 13) by Bishop Charles Grahmann and incurred serious restrictions (such as not being able to wear clerical garb and from presenting himself as a priest in good standing). Although ordered to do so, he was hesitant or slow to terminate his national online ministry.  He was especially popular with young people and his site got as many as 50,000 hits a day.  When the revelations of misconduct were made public, his supporters were in utter disbelief and rallied to his defense.  Unfortunately, accusations of improper behavior dated back to the 1970’s.  Since 1995 he had been directed to avoid ministerial contacts with youth and men thirty years of age or younger.  He disappeared into retirement, stripped of all the trappings of priesthood, even the title, FATHER.  An official monitum or Church warning went out in 2007 that he was allegedly celebrating home Masses and was associating with children and teenagers in violation of his suspension and earlier restrictions.  I recall one vocal critic who complained when she spotted the elderly Roberts praying quietly in the rear corner of a parish church.  It looked to her that he was wearing a clerical shirt, albeit not black and without the tell-tale Roman collar.  If I recall the correspondence correctly, someone may have even called him “father,” although I suspect that he was also called many other things of  a far more offensive nature.  My response was to remind the critic, who had every right to be upset and disappointed in the wayward priest, that we are all sinners and the Church will never close her doors to any soul seeking to make reparation for wrongs and to find healing in Christ.  Given that the charges were true, maybe he was bringing the many victims to prayer?  We leave ultimate judgment to God.

I was a big fan of his YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT program on EWTN. It was a wonderful show which he co-hosted with a Catholic and Protestant teenager.  It spoke to the youth in a non-threatening language that they could understand.  His small booklet in response to the anti-Catholicism of Jimmy Swaggert was also right on the mark.  Of course, the misconduct soured or ruined the positive impact of much of what he did. 

As with the many other scandals facing the Church, it is all so terrible and hard to believe.  How must we respond?  We must pray for victims and their perpetrators.  We must seek transparency in our discipleship and shed any duplicity.  We must seek justice and healing for those harmed.

His family and friends kept his passing quiet so as to avoid sensationalism.  That is as it should be.  The reason I posted this information was to urge all his past fans, friends and critics to pray for the repose of his soul.  He was buried from Holy Cross-Immaculata Parish in Cincinnati on December 27, 2018.  The Mass was celebrated by Fr. Timothy Reid.  He was buried at Gate of Heaven Cemetery (11000 Montgomery Road, Cincinnati, OH  45249).

He very much believed in the power of prayer and frequently urged that we remember the poor helpless souls in purgatory.  I suspect that he has now joined their company.

img012b

Funeral Mass Program – Fr. Kenneth J. Roberts

Eternal rest, grant unto him/her O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May he rest in peace. Amen.

May his/her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Remembering Father Ken… I hope and trust that he knew the graces that come with repentance.  REST IN PEACE.


http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/dallas_bishop_suspends_father_ken_roberts

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2003/former-student-pursues-charges/

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/gay-priests-open-letter-fr-james-martin

Women & The Priesthood

154394781759216217 (7)

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.

Ramblings about Fornication, Adultery and Homosexuality

154394781759216217 (6)

None of these topics stand alone.  Once human sexuality is pursued more for pleasure than for parenthood, the flood walls open.  Sex is separated from marriage.  This truth about fornication immediately leads to that which is the primary cause of divorce, adultery.  Once sex is separated from marriage, it is very hard to reattach.  The critics of Church teaching might not always argue for blatant promiscuity; but they are apologists for sex outside of marriage.  They will even resort to semantics.  Just as contraceptive use is regarded as “responsible parenthood” and abortion is labeled “choice,” fornication is classified as “pre-ceremonial sex.” It is expected that couples will “live together” or cohabitate prior to actual marriage.  That which was wrongly explored as a way to test the waters is increasingly becoming a non-contractual alternative to marriage.  However, mortal sin is not a good preparation for matrimony.  Indeed, it makes one ill-disposed to God’s grace.  It also cheapens the message of love.  True love seeks the good of the beloved, placing his or her needs ahead of one’s own desires.  Men and women are called to marriage where they can be helpmates to each other in holiness and grace.  The institution of marriage is an important level of protection for the spouse and the children.  It is crafted as a vocation of monogamous love defined by discipline, duty and dependence (the three d’s).  Indeed, some shy away from marriage because it is a public proclamation of obligation and responsibility.  Christian love is always sacrificial and seeks redemption in Christ.  Husbands and wives need to assist each other in becoming saints and going to heaven.  Love of a superficial depth or that which suffers from a counterfeit faith would place the object of one’s attentions into mortal sin and risk the pains and loss of hell.  How is that true love?  What would happen to the beloved if death should overtake him or her prior to the full acquisition of the marriage bed?

When it comes to the vocation of marriage, promises are made to be kept.  Jesus forbids divorce.  But what becomes of fidelity when no formal promises are made at all?

Catholicism promotes an honest appreciation of sexuality and human weakness. Looking first to dating or courtship, heavy petting and French kissing are sinful outside of marriage as they make self-control difficult and often lead to either intercourse or oral sex.  Men and women are not robots.  We must always be cognizant of time and place when we are with others.  Public places are safer than private locations.  Late hour encounters might be more liable for violations of persons than how we carry ourselves in the daylight.  There is also a heightened value upon meeting a nice girl or boy at church or school over encountering strangers at a pick-up bar.

Critics contend that the Church places too much emphasis upon sex.  However, the truth is the other way around.  It is secular society and Christian revisionists that place such extreme gravity in sexual activity that it becomes an ends unto itself.  The slippery slope begins that will eventually set the stage for even perverse desires and the demand that homosexuality be normalized.

One of the loudest critics of Catholic teaching on human sexuality is Fr. James Martin.  It has been argued (to my satisfaction) that Fr. James Martin does not think with the mind of the Church upon the matter of homosexuality. He would contend otherwise, quoting the universal catechism that those who regard themselves as homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” [CCC 2358]. This is as it should be but how would we parse the definition of discrimination? Too many priests of his sort would affirm both the disorientation and same-sex unions. It may be that many young men come to their priests wanting to hear the hard truth— that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is always and everywhere the matter of mortal sin. The scandal here is that priests are summoned as prophetic voices for Christ to preach and teach the truth. The substitution of our own opinion or words for the often challenging Word of God leads the children of God astray.

I do not believe we should have any part in attempting to normalize being gay. While much is made of homosexual marriage or same-sex unions, the truth is far more sordid in that the majority of active gays are highly promiscuous.  I also think it is problematical to ordain gay men, particularly those with past encounters. We should not fall prey to the false toleration of secular culture over the commission to be signs of contradiction in our world. We must respect the inherent dignity of persons even if we cannot always approve of everything that people do. A facet of the dilemma we face is that homosexuals are increasing making their sexual orientation into a primary factor of personal identity. This inadvertently impoverishes the depth of meaning that defines human persons. We are so much more than our sexual drives and romantic proclivities. The need for love, affection and friendship should not be limited to or strictly defined by genital activity. Sexual union should also always be in accord with the natural congress of a man and woman entitled to the marital act.

Discernment of the moral character of the man or woman would neither turn a blind eye to sexual affections nor dismiss a history of genital activity; however, the measure of a person also includes many other pertinent attributes such as fidelity to promises, generosity of spirit, courage in keeping obligations and a willingness to sacrifice for others. My analysis as a heterosexual but celibate Catholic priest is that Christian gay men and women are called by God to respond in a profound way with lives of prayer, loving service and perfect continence. The Gospel would never deny love to any child of God; however, we must distinguish what does and does not constitute genuine loving.

I should add that if the scandalous allegations are true, then Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is the most typical case of the homosexual abuser in the Church.  Supposedly he had relations with men and minors.  Eighty percent or more of the abuse cases narrated in the Church are with young males and often within the teen years (pederasty and not true pedophilia).  However, many of the bishops and Fr. Martin insist (against the facts) that there is no correlation between homosexuality and abuse.  Until this connection is admitted, I have to wonder if we will reliably deal with the current scandal.  By contrast, recent remarks by Pope Francis would allow that active homosexuals should be respected and loved as God’s children, but they should be denied entry into holy orders. The Pope does not see homosexuality as a neutral matter. There is concurrence with the universal catechism that speaks about it as a disordered attraction.

Sexual activity is the exclusive right of heterosexual spouses. We are all obliged to keep the sixth and ninth commandments. The commandment against adultery focuses upon illicit sexual activity. By extension it would also include general fornication, prostitution, pornography, homosexual acts, masturbation, orgies, rape, incest, pedophilia, pederasty, bestiality and necrophilia.

The Pope may not want homosexuals in the priesthood but the Holy Father is outspoken about his desire to welcome people who feel alienated by the Church.  I suspect that what muddies the waters are efforts to welcome homosexuals and those in invalid second marriages as full or practicing members of the Church. Can we truly affirm the dignity of persons and sympathize with their struggles when the first words out of our mouths are those of condemnation and judgment? Might there be a better way? While critics of the Church are wrong to demand absolute acceptance of activity and states of life ruled as immoral or sinful from Scripture and Tradition; is there a praxis that might preserve their link to the faith community and the possibility of a healing or merciful accompaniment? I have been critical of the open table in regards to the reception of Holy Communion. If one is not spiritually disposed toward the Eucharist, then would we not be bringing down divine judgment upon the heads of such people? How can we give absolution to those in adulterous or intimate same-sex relationships if there is no firm purpose of amendment of life? This is where much of the debate is taking place.

Along with fornication and adultery, homosexual acts are listed by St. Paul as among those sins that can cost us our share in Christ’s kingdom.  The Church struggles to distinguish the disordered nature of homosexuality from the actual commission of homosexual sin (an intrinsic evil).  Many refuse to acknowledge this delineation and/or see it as a renouncement of persons.  Acts against nature are always regarded by the faith as abusive.  Of course, here again our secular society wants to avoid this verdict.  One has to wonder how far the sexual toleration can be stretched.  Does it already include multiple partners?  Are bestiality and pedophilia waiting in the wings for general acceptance?

Two Sides of a Coin: Contraception & Abortion

154394781759216217 (5)

Artificial Birth Control and Induced Miscarriage

The attack upon Catholic theology escalates from auto-eroticism or self- stimulation to fornication, cohabitation, adultery. Once these practices involve another person, the issue of artificial birth control and abortion quickly arises.  Today the contraceptive mentality is so ingrained that many churchmen now ignore it as a lost battle.  The practice is found both among the most egregious public sinners and those who regularly attend Sunday Mass and say their prayers.  While the Catholic faith is directly targeted, often the history of the question is ignored.  Virtually all Christian churches, Protestant and Catholic, forbade the use of birth control from the time of Christ until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930.  Technology had advanced, but birth control was even condemned in the early Church when bizarre treatments included the use of crocodile dung.  It was viewed as an attack against the natural order and the fundamental meaning of marriage as the divinely sanctioned institution directed toward the generation of new human life.  The basic definition of marriage was at stake.

Often the revisionists make no distinction between the types of birth control or the abortifacient nature of certain pills and of all IUDs.  There was a logical progression in our society from the use of birth control to the deeper tragedy of abortion.  Sex and the generation of human life were separated.  When contraceptives failed, abortion became the final option.  The Church’s voice suffered from divisiveness within her own ranks.  Not only was the definition of marriage at stake but also about the “incommensurate” value of human life and the precious dignity of all human persons.  Here too there is a peculiar irony in that the same angry voices against rogue priests and child abuse, failed to note the element of abuse toward women in contraception and the death sentence that was imposed upon innocent children in the womb.  Women were increasingly used and devalued.  Their worth was measured in terms of sexual desirability and promiscuity.  Worse yet, women bought the lie that this somehow balanced the playing field between men and women.  It did not.  Many women were robbed of their opportunities for motherhood and family life.  The worse abuse of all against children materialized with the advent of legalized abortion.  Until recently an abortionist in Germantown Maryland was aborting nine-month-old children in the womb— yes, children that were ready to be born.  Abortion at any stage is murder and we suffer this grievous abuse against children as a manufactured right of selfish women and men.

What does the universal catechism offer on the subject of contraception?

[CCC 2366] Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which “is on the side of life” (FC 30) teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life” (HV 11). “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act” (HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii).

[CCC 2367] Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God (Ephesians 3:14; Matthew 23:9). “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility” (GS 50 # 2).

As for the more pressing issue of abortion, we read:

[CCC 2270] Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life (CDF, Donum vitae I,1).

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5).

“My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:15).

[CCC 2271] Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

“You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” (Didache 2,2:ÆCh 248,148).

“God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (GS 51 § 3).

[CCC 2272] Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” (CIC, can. 1398) “by the very commission of the offense,” (CIC, can. 1314) “and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law” (CIC, cann. 1323-1324). The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

[CCC 2273] The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death” (CDF, Donum vitae III).

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights” (CDF, Donum vitae III).

[CCC 2274] Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence” (CDF, Donum vitae I,2).

[CCC 2275] “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival” (CDF, Donum vitae I,3).

“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material” (CDF, Donum vitae I,5).

“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity” (CDF, Donum vitae I,6) which are unique and unrepeatable.

[CCC 2368] A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart (GS 51 # 3).

[CCC 2369] “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood” (HV 12).