Sexuality | Blogger Priest

Contraception, Gender Roles & Priestesses

Posted on July 28, 2011 by Father Joe

Do you know that there is no single cell in the human body (with the exception of gametes for reproduction) which is not sexually imprinted as either male or female? I will not go into an elementary lecture on the structural differences between the sexes or the differing roles in the marital act. Although a few contest it, there are differences in the characteristics of mind and spirit, too. While we must be careful of stereotypes, women seem to have a heightened receptivity and religious sense. Their powers of intuition and emotion also seem more pronounced over the male’s analytical approach to life and ideas. We cannot dismiss the wonderful gifts of women. These kinds of distinctions must be considered in any debate regarding women ministers, and even more so, about the possibility of women priests or priestesses. The differences between the sexes and any talk about the subordination of women do not imply inferiority and is ultimately the will of the Creator. Any degradation of womanhood would be a false interpretation of Scripture and impugn the work of God with creation and human nature.

The question of women in the priesthood arose after the so-called sexual revolution. The legalization and endorsement of artificial contraception tended to escalate the separation of womanhood from motherhood and the home. The role of women went through a drastic reappraisal. Sexual expression was also increasingly severed from marriage and the desire for a family. After the Anglican decision to tolerate contraception, at least for married couples, in 1930, the Catholic Church felt compelled to respond with a clear repudiation of such a stance. I am among the school of thought holding that Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on the ends of marriage, Casti Connubii, fulfills the requirements for infallibility within the universal ordinary Magisterium. All the world bishops were consulted and it was received everywhere, by the shepherds and laity alike. Dr. William May and Dr. Germain Grisez are also of one mind about this. The encyclical condemned artificial contraception. But, what is more, it corrected the modern view about the “equality of rights” of the spouses. The Holy Father wrote, “. . . there must be a certain inequality . . . which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life” (paragraph 77). This “hierarchical” ordering of marriage implied not denigration of women, “for if the man is the head, the woman is the heart” of the family (paragraph 27f). Similarly, Pius XII emphasized that the particular qualities of the sexes had to be given recognition, especially the social leadership of men and the maternal traits of women. The voice of the true Vatican II, not the nebulous and often contradictory “spirit of Vatican II,” signifies that the differences between the sexes be acknowledged and nurtured. In the Declaration on Christian Education, we read, “. . . pay due regard in every educational activity to sexual differences and to the special role which divine Providence allots to each sex in family life and in society” (#8).

I digress into all this to stress that the sexes are not the same. Further, the Church and her tradition puts much weight on the marriage analogy in understanding the priesthood and ecclesial identity as expressed in the Mass. Seen in this light, many observers would argue that it appears the ordination of women is counter to female human nature as it arises from the creative providence of God.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Filed under: Priestesses, Priests, Sexuality, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

Priestesses: Not Ordination but Subordination?

Posted on July 17, 2011 by Father Joe

What are we to make of St. Paul’s writings about women? Those who reject the inspiration of Scripture do not really care what he has to say. Others will try to distinguish changeable disciplines from doctrines, but not everyone draws the line in the same places. Many conservative voices might make light of hair coverings or even silencing women in churches, but still resist a more gender neutral partnership in marriage and more leadership roles for women in the Church. Are St. Paul’s teachings simply culturally conditioned or does his viewpoint reflect God’s timeless mind about matters.

St. Paul is the source for the major texts on the “subordination” of women. Nevertheless, critics of the status-quo of a male-only priesthood often quote his words about equality in grace found in Galatians. Paul is not schizophrenic. His words must not be forced to say things that he did not intend.

Regarding ministry and marriage, Paul is clear.

“What I want you to understand is that Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ . . . a man . . . is the image of God and reflects God’s glory; but woman is the reflection of man’s glory . . . and man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man. . . . However, though woman cannot do without man, neither can man do without woman, in the Lord; woman may come from man, but man is born of woman — both come from God” (1 Cor. 11:3, 7-8, 11-12).

Speaking of the organization of spiritual gifts, he demands:

“Women are to remain quiet at meetings since they have no permission to speak; they must keep in the background as the Law itself lays it down. . . . Anyone who claims to be a prophet or inspired ought to recognize that what I am writing to you is a command from the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:34, 37).

Illustrating his sincerity, he repeats himself to Timothy:

“During instruction a woman should be quiet and respectful. I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. . . .” (1 Tm. 2:1-14).

St. Paul is regarded as infamous in certain circles for his view of marriage:

“Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything. Husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her, to make her holy. . . . In the same way husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a man to love his wife is for him to love himself. A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is how Christ treats the Church, because it is his body — and we are its living parts. . . . This mystery has many implications; but I am saying it applies to Christ and the Church” (Ephesians 5:22-25, 28-32).

Leaving out commentary, I suspect some readers are already angry. These Scripture texts seem to fly in the face of what many know of the contemporary experience. I have known Christian feminists who gave blunt appraisals of St. Paul. They saw him as sexist and utterly patriarchal. I still remember one frustrated woman of WIT (a group at Catholic University called “Women in Theology”) who just admitted angrily, “I hate Paul!” If she could, she would have torn his writings out of her bible. But there is the catch. St. Paul is in the Bible and many of us believe that we must wrestle even with those texts that challenge us and are hard to accept. St. Paul is the great apostle to the Gentiles. The Pauline community and its beliefs will become pivotal to the Church’s understanding of sin and the measure of faith, ministry, the family and the Church.

The analogy of the spousal relationship is directly attached to Christ’s relationship to the Church. It is this analogy that is operative at Mass, wherein the priest signifies Christ, the head of the Church; the congregation is immediately reflective of the rest of the Mystical Body. The priest is one with the divine bridegroom; the assembly, representative of the bride of Christ, is identified with the Church. As I have mentioned before, unless one is going to overlook “sacramental lesbianism,” a woman cannot fulfill the function of priest in such a theological framework.

St. Paul wanted women to know their faith and to hand it on in the domestic setting; however, they were not allowed to offer the official teaching that is associated with the presbyter at liturgy. Paul makes it definitively clear that this prescription is tied up with the God-given order of creation (1 Cor. 11:7; Gn. 2:18-24). He further admits to a specified “command from the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Although this command is not known to us, it should not be dismissed. Paul is not a liar. Christ is perceived as the ultimate author of a corpus of religious teaching that must be handed on in exact detail and preserved by the teachers of faith (1 Cor. 11:23, 15:1-2; 2 Tm. 1:13). Several times Paul encountered serious assaults upon his person and office (1 Cor. 1:12, 4:3; 2 Cor. 10-12); if he had invented this “command from the Lord” to shore up his arguments, he would quickly have been stripped of his authority and unveiled as a deceiver. Such did not happen.

Will we allow the truths of Christ via St. Paul to speak to us today? I pray it will be so. I only hope it is not too late. As an experiment I read these passages to several fine women in my parish and even the most docile took some offense. How deep is the secular infection in the hearts and minds of believers? How can we recover St. Paul so that traditional values about ministry and the home can be preserved while women might still be empowered and given the respect they deserve?

POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Filed under: Bible, Catholic, Church, Priestesses, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Women Priests | 5 Comments »

Apostolic Tradition Vetoes Priestesses

Posted on July 16, 2011 by Father Joe

The early Christian community kept faith with the practice of Jesus in depending entirely on male priests. The Scriptural witness is ratified at every turn. Although the Virgin Mary occupied an honored status among them (Acts 1:14), there was never any hint that she should replace Judas as one of the twelve (Acts 1:15-26). Further, on Pentecost, despite the universal showering of the Holy Spirit upon the infant Church (Acts 1:13-14), it was left to “Peter and the Eleven” to take on the initial preaching of the Gospel (Acts 2:1, 14). Looking to St. Paul, it is evident that he relied heavily upon the help of women, maybe even more than Jesus did. Paul makes known Phoebe who served the Church in Cenchreae and also many other women who assisted him in his labors (Romans 16:1-16). He counted Priscilla and her husband Aquila among his friends (Romans 16:3), even entrusting to them the completion of his instruction of Apollos in Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul, who said some formidable things about the place of women, is left speechless when Lydia insists that he receive her hospitality at Philippi (Acts 16:14). The great apostle takes it for granted that men and women alike will pray and prophesy when the community gathers for public worship (1 Cor. 11:4-5, 13). Yet, even in the face of all this, he insisted that the leadership in the community and the official teaching come from male office-bearers. I mention all this because sometimes certain post-Christian and anti-patriarchal feminists caricature the early Church as a woman-haters’ club. Far from it, the apostolic community was in many ways more liberating for its women than pagan society; however, women were still not ordained. They felt the very real need to perpetuate the model of ministry established by Christ.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Priestesses, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Uncategorized, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

The Mind of Christ About Priestesses

Posted on July 13, 2011 by Father Joe

Emotionalism often pollutes the debate about women’s ordination. As in so many liberal dissents, there seems to be the impression that shouting and acts with shock value can replace rational discussion and humble obedience to the Magisterium and the sacred deposit. Personal biases spouted in slogans will help no one. The sober question has to be asked, what does our Lord reveal to us about this question in the Scriptures and faith of the Church? It is crystal clear that he did not call any women into the number of the apostles (Mark 3:13-19).

First, this fact alone takes on heightened importance because certain women accompanied the group on their journeys and financed their needs (Luke 8:2-3). None of them were given priesthood.

Second, Jesus did not hesitate in dismissing then current religious and cultural attitudes in relating to females. He disregarded the hemorrhaging woman’s legal impurity (Matthew 9:20); he allowed the disreputable woman in Simon the Pharisee’s house to approach him (Luke 7:37); he sided with the adulteress (John 8:11); and he undermined the Mosaic Law in espousing the equal rights of men and women in marriage, protecting the woman from abandonment in divorce (Mark 10:2; Matthew 19:3). Obviously, Jesus could not be coerced by societal prejudices to prohibit women priests; it must have been his own choice.

Third, he illustrated in his stories an unheard of empathy with the lives of women as in the parable of the good housewife (Luke 15:8-10) and of the widow before a crooked judge (Luke 18:1-8). It can be assumed that Jesus did not feel that his exclusion of women from holy orders was any real slight to them.

Fourth, as his disciples, many of the women showed a courage greater than that of the apostles, even so far as to stand at the foot of his Cross (Mark 15:40-41). Individual qualifications apparently took a backseat to other concerns; perhaps the inability of female humanity to image Christ as the head of the Church? Does not the laity, as feminine, still look upon the Cross now transformed into an altar at which the priest renders Christ’s sacrifice? Yes.

Fifth, they were the first to proclaim the Good News on Easter morning, and to the apostles themselves (Matthew 28:7; Luke 24:9; Jn 20:11). Does this not tell us how much the Lord prizes the laity in the Mystical Body? Maybe the problem is not that we esteem the ordained priesthood too highly, but that we look upon the laity too disdainfully. The bulk of all evangelism is still done by the people in the pews. However, despite all this, the women were not mentioned at the Last Supper (Mark 14:17). Surrounded only by the apostles, this absence is made all the more striking since the Passover is a family meal at which women and children were customarily present (Exodus 12:1-14).

In light of this evidence, one can readily conclude that the exclusion of women from priesthood must have been freely and directly willed by Christ.

POPE JOHN PAUL II: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Filed under: Bible, Catholic, Church, Jesus, Priestesses, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

SOLT Press Release on Father Corapi

Posted on July 5, 2011 by Father Joe

The Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity has put out an official press release on the FATHER CORAPI SCANDAL. Fr. Gerard Sheehan, the superior writes:

“While SOLT does not typically comment publicly on personnel matters, it recognizes that Fr. John Corapi, through his ministry, has inspired thousands of faithful Catholics, many of whom continue to express their support of him. SOLT also recognizes that Fr. Corapi is now misleading these individuals through his false statements and characterizations. It is for these Catholics that SOLT, by means of this announcement, seeks to set the record straight.”

While I can appreciate the need for a statement, I must admit that I am surprised at the bluntness and the depth of revelation. He remarks about the investigative process and what they discerned from emails, witnesses and other sources that has been going on during the time of the priest’s public ministry:

Fr. Corapi already handed in his resignation in early June.
He paid $100,000 to silence the woman making charges.
Other witnesses were similarly silenced and Fr. Corapi refused to release them for testimony to the investigative team.
He had violated his promise of poverty by holding legal title to over one million dollars in real estate, luxuary cars, boats, etc.
He cohabitated in two states with a known prostitute, recently began sexting one or two women and resorted to repeated drug and alcohol use.

I would not normally even post about such matters, but I can well appreciate the frustation of his superior. Fr. Corapi is a powerful communicator and people love him. If he is guilty of such things and is falsely placing the blame on the leadership of the Catholic Church, then public correction needs to be made. Having said this, I think that the leadership in SOLT must be faulted for allowing this situation to grow so out of hand. They should have reigned him in years ago. Their passivity has now made for a far worse and more scandalous situation. The press release continues:

“SOLT has contemporaneously with the issuance of this press release directed Fr. John Corapi, under obedience, to return home to the Society’s regional office and take up residence there. It has also ordered him, again under obedience, to dismiss the lawsuit he has filed against his accuser.”

A letter of resignation would not release him from his priestly promises and those made to SOLT. A good priest does as he is told. This is a bad situation all around. I wonder how Fr. Corapi will respond? I suppose die-hard fans will contend that the evidence is contrived and that the priest is innocent. And indeed, I would still argue that if he is innocent then he should make his case and work with the process. It is unfortunate that Fr. Corapi has forced this whole matter and scandal into the public forum. But souls are at stake and this delicate situation is about more than one man. If he is guilty, then he should demonstrate sorrow and contrition, placing his ministry and future into the hands of his lawful superiors. It would be a wonderful teaching moment and maybe the highpoint of his ministry. Christ is speaking to him through his superiors. That is how priestly obedience works. But will he listen? Will he fight for his priesthood? This battle cannot be won with militant rhetoric or tactics of subterfuge. He can only find victory by being a faithful son of the Church and a humble priest. He must be courageous and forthright about any revelations exposed by the truth. He must reckon himself as any confessor to be the first among sinners, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” Things will never be the same but God may not be finished with him yet. I pray that Fr. Corapi will make the right choice and work with God’s grace in this.

An element which really upsets me about this situation is how one segment of the Church is set against another. Father Corapi comes under investigation and the priest comes out with a statement that the bishop and his superior have a right to do what they do; but next he talks about the real enemies of the Church and we all know he is targeting those who put him on administrative leave. Then he claims obedience but his personal corporation makes a statement that they are under no one’s thumb and the ministry media business will continue as if nothing has happened. By the beginning of June he submits his resignation and tells his fans weeks later that the Church has forced him out. Bishop Michael Mulvey and his lawful superior, Fr. Gerard Sheehan, SOLT, seek to clarify matters but then there is the public intervention on his behalf of the founders of SOLT, Father Flanagan and the Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Bishop Rene Gracida. Critics and fans of the priest can now take their pick and decry the other side as wrong-headed or evil. The impression is given that the Church is fighting with herself. Despite the lament of Fr. Corapi that this is a plot of the liberals who are out to get him, the battleground that emerges is between very conservative or orthodox churchmen and laity. Liberal revisionists are no doubt having a delight in watching the so-called “religious right” of the Church rip itself apart over the media priest. This has all the makings of a new voyeuristic television program called THE BATTLING BISHOPS. Since the clarification released from SOLT, I notice now that Bishop Gracida seems to have shifted somewhat from supporting Fr. Corapi to attacking SOLT for allowing the situation to develop in the first place. However, it seems to me that the stage was set by those who initially allowed Fr. Corapi to set up his independent operations. In other words, there is blame enough to go around. It is troubling that Bishop Gracida took a public stand against a man’s lawful superiors even though he admits that he has not talked with the priest for years! Now Fr. Corapi is telling his fans on Twitter to look forward to an important announcement on Thursday. Enough already! I discern a manipulation of good men behind all these tensions that is due to evil human machination and/or to the intrusion of something devilish.

Phil Lawler at CATHOLIC CULTURE succinctly tells it as it is:

Like the late Father Marcial Maciel, the disgraced founder of the Legion of Christ, John Corapi has worked for years as a celebrity priest: encouraging a cult of personality, setting his own agenda, raising large sums of money that he spent at his own discretion, and—most dangerous of all—accountable to no one. It was a formula for disaster, and now the disaster has occurred. Again.

I would beg people to separate the truths Father taught from the possible failings of the messenger. All are tempted, but the devil delights in targeting priests; while he could not seduce the high priest Christ, he often settles for corrupting those men who participate in his priesthood. Pray for priests, pray for Father Corapi and pray for “the little ones” who might despair of their faith.

I am done with this topic, but will give Father Corapi the last word:

FINANCES…”From the earliest days (more than twenty years ago) the Founder of the Society of Our Lady, Fr. James Flanagan, encouraged me to support myself and the Church as well.”

IMPROPRIETY…”I have never had any promiscuous or even inappropriate relations with her.”

INVESTIGATION…”As standard practice, my legal counsel advised me not to cooperate with the investigation until I was able to determine that the Commission’s process was fair and I had adequate rights to defend myself.”

HUSH MONEY…”I never paid anybody off to remain silent.”

RESIGNATION…”I resigned because the process used by the Church is grossly unjust, and, hence, immoral. I resigned because I had no chance from the beginning of a fair and just hearing. As I have indicated from the beginning of all this, I am not extinguished!”

CLICK HERE to read the SOLT press release.

CLICK HERE to read my post on this matter last month.

A good friend feels that this topic and the argumentation associated with it is not good for me. It is true that I find it very upsetting. I love the priesthood and the Church. I get defensive when they are threatened. I also worry deeply about the good of souls. It is true too that the plight of a brother priest is always felt very personally. Many of the comments, moderated and mostly not posted, are unreasoning and angry. So I am going to end it here. Orignally I posted a video here that gave Father Corapi the last word, albeit with an advertisement tagged to it. However, he has liquidated his business and removed all signs of his web presence. He is gone from sight, but maybe not from our minds and hearts. Keep him and the people he impacted in prayer.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Corapi, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, Forgiveness, Morality, News, Priests, Religion, Repentance, Sacraments, Sexuality, Uncategorized | 21 Comments »

Priestesses & Dissent Against the Deposit

Posted on June 25, 2011 by Father Joe

It is evident from the Epistles and the Acts of Apostles that the roots of our ordination teaching are pre-Nicene. While insufficient to remedy the break in apostolic succession that afflicted the Anglican ordinal early in England’s reformation, it is true that their priests and bishops who have shored up their orders with Old Catholic and Orthodox Bishops concelebrating their ordinations and consecrations may indeed be sharers in holy orders. When the Anglican Archbishop of London was received into the Roman Catholic Church, he was not re-ordained as is the usual practice but was conditionally ordained a priest. This exception was shown because he was able to show with some certitude his pedigree of orthodox precursors. Otherwise, the 1896 papal bull, Apostolicae Curiae, still holds: Anglican orders are null and void. This all aside, the point I want to make is that the exclusion of women is a long held tradition that cannot be dismissed arbitrarily. Indeed, it is a fitting example of the canon discerned by St. Vincent of Lerins about the certitude of a doctrine as a practice or belief common to the Church “everywhere, to everyone, at all times.” The Church would allow for the organic development of doctrine analogous to the growth of a human body from infancy to maturity; but, and this comes straight from John Henry Newman, this development while real must not result in the least alteration to the original significance of the doctrine involved. This cannot be said of the revisionist position in favor of Christian priestesses. The faithful Catholic must “guard the deposit” (1 Timothy 6:20), the revelation enshrined in the Scriptures and interpreted in the Church’s tradition by the Magisterium.

Proponents of women’s ordination dissent from the promulgated Catechism of the Catholic Church. This work has been given the Imprimi Potest by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger himself, head of the Congregation of the Faith, who is now Pope Benedict XVI. It is introduced by the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, by Pope John Paul II. He writes: “It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church.” He makes no qualification in declaring “it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” A couple of paragraphs later, he says it again: “This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine . . . .”

Nevertheless, by dissenting against the teaching of the male-only priesthood, critics seek to undermine the truthfulness of the entire document and the God-given authority of the Church to teach it. They even castigate the Magisterium as murderers of vocations. They make relative what should be objective truth. They reinterpret Scripture according to their own “personal” and false enlightenment and dismiss the exegetical role of the teaching Church. They ignore tradition as irrelevant or pretend that it is somehow in their favor. They do all this, and yet plead to be a good Catholics. We must be careful of dissent.

Let us look at what the catechism says about women priests:

[1577] “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination” (CIC, can. 1024). The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible (Cf. John Paul II, MD 26-27; CDF, declaration, Inter insigniores: AAS 69 [1977] 98-116).

Inter insigniores leaves no room for discussion. It says:

“. . . the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith judges it necessary to recall that the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” A sentence or so later it reiterates the point: “The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women.”

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Priestesses, Priests, Sexuality, Women Priests | Leave a comment »

Women Priests or Priestesses?

Posted on June 22, 2011 by Father Joe

Maybe we should stop using the phrase, “woman priest”? It seems to me that the modern abhorrence of the word “priestess” is a telling fact. Even our unconscious psyches are uncomfortable with the possibility and this Orwellian word game is somehow an attempt to bypass our revulsion and the theological absurdity. Fr. George Rutler remarked in his Episcopalian days: “. . . and to say ‘woman priest’ is semantically as androit as saying ‘female rooster.'” Perhaps we avoid the word priestess because it tears to shreds any conception of this notion as fresh and modern? The word may even be older than “priest.” (See the book Priest and Priestess by Fr. George W. Rutler.)

The new Episcopalian priestesses are not so much one with true Catholic priests as they are with their western European and Mesopotamian forebears who rendered sybilline declamations over animal entrails.

Critics of the Catholic exclusion often quote the universality of baptism and faith in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They confuse Catholic soteriology (that salvation is available to all) with the tradition of a male-only priesthood instituted by Christ and maintained by the apostles. A favorite verse of mine is this one: “But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3). Paul addresses himself in the subsequent text to some of the lesser and changeable traditions (like Mass veils), but his theological underpinnings are what constitutes the revealed truth. More exactly, he is talking about Christian anthropology and the sacrament of marriage. A woman cannot signify the groom, Christ the head. An even greater scandal erupts if such a priestess were literally married. She who is subject to her husband would then seek the submissiveness of the Church, including her husband, to her. A contradiction would emerge. Those who do not like this analogy have an argument, not with me, but with St. Paul and the Holy Spirit which inspired him.

If critics can cast aside the teachings of popes and apostles, how can they be so sure that they have the mind of Christ regarding women’s ordination?

Responding to an Attack Upon Catholicism

Posted on May 1, 2011 by Father Joe

PAUL: You people are very sick.

FATHER JOE: You are very angry and judgmental about Catholicism. Are you a fallen-away Catholic? Many Catholics find comfort and helpful guidance in Catholic faith and values. You are too quick to tear down and attack that for which you seem to lack authentic understanding. Sin is the sickness, not religious faith. You are no better than the people you ridicule. You are also a weak sinner who needs Jesus and his mercy.

PAUL: The Catholic Church has made so many “rules” that do not even exist in the Bible.

FATHER JOE: The Catholic Church has rules for good order, but the commandments and the ecclesial precepts find their basis in the Decalogue given to Moses and the two commandments of love from Christ. We also believe in natural law. God gave us reason to appreciate the harmony and order of his creation. Values that reflect divine positive law and natural law are not capricious.

PAUL: Since when do “men” speak for God or Christ?

FATHER JOE: As for men speaking for God, such is the witness of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles. Our Lord, himself, while critical of the hypocrisy of Pharisees, admonished the Jewish people to do as they say and not as they do. Jesus establishes a new covenant people and gives the Church’s leadership something of his authority. The Church is entrusted with the Gospel and even collects the books and letters that would constitute the New Testament and the complete Christian Bible. Men in the Church have also been responsible for the translation of the Scriptures. Apart from the community, and men wise in the ways of God, you would not even know God’s Word. If men and women did not pass on the faith, you would not know Jesus or the story of salvation. The Catholic Church was preaching the Good News before there was a complete Christian bible and while the Gospels were only an oral tradition.

PAUL: Where in the Bible does it say one should confess sins to another man, say a few Hail Marys, Our Fathers (and of course put some $$$ in the box!) to be forgiven? PLEASE show me this. IT does not exist.

FATHER JOE:

Jesus, being God, knew the hearts of men. Nevertheless, sinners still needed to repent and believe. Priests have the authority to forgive sins, but few have the power to read souls or minds. That is why the confession of sins is crucial, making possible an adequate penance and counsel. The prayers or acts of penance and/or mortification show God our thankfulness for his mercy and make a certain degree of reparation for temporal punishment due to sin. There is precedent for confession in the Old Testament: Leviticus 5:5, Leviticus 26:40-42, Hosea 5:15, Job 33:27-28, Joshua 7;19, Jeremiah 3:13, and Proverbs 28:13.

Tithing or support for the Church is a Christian obligation; however, it is not normally an element of penance arising from the Sacrament of Confession. The Lord gives priests something of his authority so that they might perpetuate his ministry of reconciliation. We read in 2 Corinthians 2:10-11: “Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ, so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes.” St. Paul goes on to write: “And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19). Another important text is 1 John 19: “If we acknowledge [confess] our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.” There is also James 5:16: “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.” Looking at the Gospels, texts like Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 are important. Often cited is John 20:21-23: “(Jesus) said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.’”

PAUL: What good does it do me to pray to Mary? She cannot save ANYONE. Only Christ can forgive your sins. Pray to him, not some guy in a fancy box who will then give you his recommended “Penance.” How ridiculous!

FATHER JOE: Yes, only Christ can forgive sins, but the ministry of Jesus is perpetuated and mediated within the saving community of the Church. Penitents receive absolution from a priest, but the proper object of the prayers is always God. Indeed, even prayers to Mary and the other saints, while they invoke intercession and solidarity, are still directed to God. Those who have already made it to the promised shore continue to love and pray for us. The graces from the deposit of the saints can also be accessed. Nothing is lost. Christ is present and his saving work is active in his Mystical Body, the Church. Confession is a sacrament that can be conducted behind a screen or face-to-face. There is nothing ridiculous about this. Indeed, it is beautiful. God loves us and gives us all we need for spiritual perfection.

PAUL: Catholics need to read their own Bible and quit making up their own human rules!

FATHER JOE: Catholics have wonderful bibles and the Scriptures are proclaimed at and substantiate the Mass and Reconciliation. Human rules or disciplines in the Church amplify the law of God and give order to our Christian discipleship. Such is the mandate given to the apostles and their successors as our lawful shepherds.

PAUL: Please tell me where in the Bible sins are labeled as “mortal”? — MORE Catholic rubbish.

FATHER JOE: For someone who argues “sola scriptura,” you seem to be in great ignorance of biblical truths. It is sad that someone who claims to be a Christian would insult learned believers who take their faith seriously. The Bible teaches degrees to sin. All sin, even “venial” or lesser sin, is disobedience and a failure to love as we should. However, certain sins are most grave and bring upon us the sentence of death, in other words, these are “mortal” sins which kill the soul and breech our relationship with God. The Old Testament admits to degrees of sin (see Genesis 18:20). The New Testament amplifies this truth (see John 19:11). Just as our Lord could raise the dead, the absolution in the sacrament of penance can restore a contrite soul back to life. “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly” (1 John:16-17).

PAUL: Just step into our church, sit down and let us read you a few verses, then we’ll pass the basket around again for a few more of your hard earned dollars… I have been to Rome and viewed all the wealth the Catholic Church has managed to gather from “devout Catholics.”

FATHER JOE: Participation at church is more than just going through the motions. Most parishes and Catholic pastors struggle to be good stewards of the resources given us by God’s good people. We do not preach a prosperity gospel but witness in a way that brings the truth to ignorance, healing to the hurting and hope to the oppressed. The Church is a treasury of the Western world’s history and culture. But she is also the refuge of a billion people in this world and many more in the next who count Jesus Christ as both their personal and corporate Savior. The Pope intervenes annually for the poor and collections are taken the world over to cover the shortfall. Would you have us sell all our churches for secular condos and for shopping malls? Your bigotry betrays your reason.

PAUL: My wife was refused entry into the famous “Vatican” because her shoulders were not completely covered. Christ said bring ALL sinners, He has no Dress Code for his house! I found it very funny how a young girl in line ahead of us (most likely 8 years of age and obviously a virgin) was allowed in without her shoulders covered at all, yet a married woman was not! MORE Catholic B.S.!

FATHER JOE: The dress code for the Vatican and meeting the Pope is well documented. The problem was that you and your wife did not respect the Holy Father enough to make proper preparations. Comparing the status of an adult woman with a child and then making a comment about her sexual condition shows the great depth of your spiritual sickness and moral depravity. All churches have dress codes of one sort or another, the same for synagogues and mosques. Would you have churches allow people to enter with vulgar tee-shirts or naked? As for our Lord, he told a parable that you have evidently forgotten: “But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:11-14). Every Mass is a sacramental participation in the heavenly marriage banquet. Our dress and posture should show the proper respect, not simply to the Pope, but to almighty God. Tell your wife to cover up next time.

PAUL: NO ONE could ever convince me that this cult called Catholicism is true followers of Christ. The weak minded will believe ANYTHING these “men” tell them and empty their pockets if they are convinced it will get them to Heaven.

FATHER JOE: If you believed Catholicism was a cult then why would you even try to enter the Vatican? Were you up to no good? The weakness of argument and mind is yours. You throw out straw man arguments that are parroted from old anti-Catholic sources. I hear a lot of prejudice and anger speaking, but little in the way of reasoned argument. Typical of your type, you falsely characterize Catholic beliefs and then you attack what you yourself have fashioned. No one can buy his or her way into heaven. The Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. Jesus is the anointed one or Christ. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

PAUL: All people really need to do is READ THE BIBLE THEMSELVES and understand that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!

FATHER JOE: The Bible was once used in arguments for slavery. You cannot use the Bible like a moral manual. However, I will admit the there is much in the Scriptures, particularly in the message of Christ, which stresses the inherent worth and dignity of all men and women. St. Paul makes mention that in Christ there is neither free nor slave, Jew nor Gentile, male nor female… all are called to the saving grace of our baptismal faith. Man was made in the image of God. The forgiveness of sins restores our full likeness.

PAUL: Just because some guy wears a fancy robe (and a KKK hat) doesn’t make him (or her) any “holier” than anyone else on this planet. Nor does it give him (them) the divinity to make some “new heavenly rules”!

FATHER JOE: The racist KKK is also historically anti-Catholic and you are mouthing many of their old slanders against the Catholic Church. The robes do not give our shepherds their authority. It is given to them by Christ. They share in the apostolic succession that keeps us in both historical and spiritual unity with Christ. The apostles passed on their authority and we still proclaim the ancient faith. Christianity did not begin as a book religion. As I have written before, the Church was proclaiming the Gospel and baptizing new believers even before there was a New Testament. The Magisterium does NOT invent new heavenly rules. Rather, the Church passes on what she has been given. The problem is not that Catholicism added anything; rather, it is that anti-Catholic fundamentalists like you have subtracted out elements of the faith given us by Jesus Christ.

PAUL: Personally I follow the guidance delivered by The Bible, not a bunch of men and women who think they are “cleaner than the rest” because they supposedly don’t have sex (let’s not talk about the altar boy molestation that has occurred time and time again and mostly hidden or covered up by the Great Catholics!)

FATHER JOE: The scandal of abuse by clergy is indeed a terrible business. But most priests are good men who love the Lord and try to make a positive difference in the lives of the people they serve. Speaking for myself, my one great ambition is to go to heaven and I would like to take a few of my friends with me. We have different roles to play in the body of the Church. We need each other. We all need Jesus. Priests do not imagine themselves as “holier than thou.” Even the Pope regularly goes to confession. We acknowledge in the sacrament, and at the beginning of every Mass, that we are sinners in need of a redeemer. LORD, HAVE MERCY ON US. CHRIST, HAVE MERCY ON US. LORD, HAVE MERCY ON US. A priest who hears confessions and offers absolution is humbled that God would make him into an instrument of healing and mercy for others. The priest Confessor counts himself as the first among sinners. He is not perfect either. That is why all priests are to be guarded about hypocrisy and self-righteousness. As for the Bible, you speak as if I and all Catholics are ignorant about God’s Word. That is not true. Of course, we could all know it better. I think you have a long way to go before you can make a claim upon teaching biblical truth. Why do I say this? Not only do you show your lack of biblical formation again and again, you demonstrate nothing of the heart of Christ’s message. There is nothing of charity in what you say. Without charity, you have nothing. I tell you this because, even though you have upset me, I am required to forgive and share the sacrificial love of Jesus. I want you to be in good standing with the Lord. You do not seem to have any awareness that attacking the Church, which is all the Christian people and not just buildings or clerics, you attack Jesus Christ.

PAUL: Jesus said it is good if a man CAN abstain, he never said you MUST abstain to spread his word, another Catholic “invention.”

FATHER JOE: No, it is your invention. One does not have to be a celibate priest in order to spread God’s Word. The Roman Catholic Church prefers a celibate priesthood, although various Eastern rites of the Catholic Church have married clergy. Our deacons are also given Holy Orders and the vast majority of these Catholic ministers are married men. They witness marriages, perform baptisms, offer funeral services, work as chaplains and bring Holy Communion to people. They do the very things we see Protestant ministers doing and more. We also have religious brothers, sisters and members of the laity who teach the faith and proclaim the Gospel by word and witness in the larger community. Further, there are growing numbers of Catholic lay evangelists, who are married and single.

PAUL: I have also never seen anything in the Bible that said masturbation is a “Mortal Sin.” Wow! I guess this means that about 99% of all men will rot in Hell— ANOTHER Catholic rumor.

FATHER JOE: Do you have a hang up about sex, Paul? Sexual sins are serious because we are corporeal beings. Our bodies are not robotic appendages or extensions, but are intimate elements of our identity as persons. Masturbation as a sin constitutes serious matter, but all good confessors also give weight to issues like habit, passion, an erotic society and media, etc. Anything that takes away freedom necessarily affects the consent. As a priest my concern about any of the sins is not to steer people toward hell but to direct them to heaven. You may have passed over into the dark area of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. I would plead that you be careful about this. The Old Testament and the rabbinic tradition placed a great emphasis upon fertility and the blessing of posterity. Masturbation is a trespass against this good of God. Masturbation or Onanism is condemned by God (see Genesis 38:9). Complicating matters further, it is a matter of course that masturbation is inextricably connected to lust and adultery in the heart. Such is also condemned by God (see Matthew 5:28-29).

PAUL: I am sorry, but the God I believe in would rather a man touch himself then take advantage of another.

FATHER JOE: This is why I am worried about you. Men can struggle with chastity and still not take advantage of others. The lines of dichotomy that you draw are false.

PAUL: All the Catholic Church wants is MORE Money. You have to make your monthly payment to get to their heaven…

FATHER JOE: Up until a few months ago, I was driving a 1995 used car. Now I have moved up to a 2002 used car… still nine years old! I wear shoes until there are holes in them. I think I live fairly simply. Compared to the Protestant ministers in my neighborhood, I am probably the poorest man among them. Most Catholic priests would be in this category. Yes, we ask for donations, but to pay the bills. We also feed the poor and help those who are hurting. Money is raised not to buy anyone’s way into heaven but to help relieve the hell that people suffer here on earth. You have it all wrong. Your false judgment against “all” the Catholic Church is nothing less than a sin.

PAUL: I went to Catholic school for the first five years of my education. It finally reached a point where my mother could not afford the tuition. She was told by the clergy that she would go to hell because she removed my sister and I from the school… Pretty cool huh? What a bunch of sickos….

FATHER JOE: Given how you have misrepresented so much else, I have a hard time believing what you write about this anonymous priest. The poor man may have had a bad day or what you say is an exaggeration, but such a tale is hardly a good reason to turn against the Church. I was turned down for Catholic school entirely. Sister told my mother that I was “sickly and stupid,” and so I went to public schools all the way through High School. I failed first grade and the public school teacher wanted to send me away to a special school for “retarded” children. Yes, that was the word she used. Another teacher came to my rescue and helped me to stay in the school the following year. I did not give up on life or learning. Neither did I turn away from the Church. I became a priest. I am sorry that you did not have such strength of conviction or faith.

PAUL: Oh and one more thing (sorry, I forgot!). The God I believe in would rather a couple use a condom to prevent the spread of disease and an unwanted child. There are enough sick people and starving children on this planet.

FATHER JOE: Men and women are not simply animals in heat. The marital act is non-contraceptive intercourse between a husband and wife. Regardless of age and fertility, it is that TYPE OF ACT that is open to the generation of new human life. Condomistic intercourse is not the marital act. Not only is it closed to the gift of children, it also places a barrier between the spouses in terms of their mutual fidelity. The natural law is circumvented in regards to the giving and receiving between spouses. They are to surrender everything they are to the other and become one flesh… not one flesh divided by a piece of latex. This is not simply a mechanistic reservation, condomistic intercourse is an entirely different TYPE OF ACT from the marital act, an act that renews the marital covenant, a covenant elevated by Christ to a sacrament which points to his unity with his bride, the Church. If marital couples are faithful to each then there is no chance of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. As for the contraceptive intent, it is the handmaid of abortion. You display this slippery slope in your language about “an unwanted child.” No child should be unwanted. Once we start thinking like that, we become enemies of the Gospel of Life proclaimed by Jesus and the Church. If couples hate, or do not want children, then they should not get married. Couples who are not married have no right to the sex act. Our Lord prophesied during his passion about such an attitude as you display. “A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him. Jesus turned to them and said, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’ At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?’” (Luke 23:27-31).

PAUL: Sex is a wonderful experience shared between two people in love. But according the Catholic’s way of thinking you need to have a newborn at least once a year because birth control is a MORTAL SIN… How stupid is that?! They just want MORE Catholics to send them more money!

FATHER JOE: The marital act is indeed a beautiful expression of love between a husband and wife; however, not every form of sexual expression is legitimate or worthy of our humanity. But I guess you have a problem with any restrictions. Once again, though, you falsify the Catholic stance toward the propagation of the species. Natural family planning can help couples space births and to have children. As long as it is used unselfishly, such family planning has value. Artificial contraception is deemed immoral but there is no Church requirement that people reproduce like rabbits. Next, you connect the matter of sex to money… the two topics that seem to obsess you. The Church embraces millions upon millions who have little voice except that of the Church seeking justice. She does not write them off or give preference to the rich. Indeed, despite how they tax the resources of the Church, the late Pope John Paul spoke about the vast multitudes of the poor as the true treasure of the Church. The Church has a preferential option for the poor.

PAUL: I pity you all for being so brainwashed. But then again look at the other cults of the world (including the one run by Jim Jones) who have convinced weak minded individuals to follow them!

FATHER JOE: You would compare the Church to a cult where a madman murdered his followers? The Church does not brainwash people or seduce weak minds. But the enemies of the Church do precisely this, and it appears to me that you are one of their victims.

PAUL: Stand up for yourselves people and pray. God WILL listen to you. Some people do need a little guidance along the way but NEVER believe things “men” speak of. There is no need to obey rules made up by a cult intent on controlling your life. Read your Bible and you will learn what GODS will is, not some guys making up the rules as they go…. Catholicism = The Earth’s Greatest Cult (good luck with that!)

FATHER JOE: Our good Catholic people do pray, sometimes standing and sometimes on their knees. Catholics are increasingly knowledgeable of their bibles and have the wisdom of the saints, the Church fathers and theologians and biblical exegetes. We are not afraid of learning. Ours is an informed faith. These sources of Christian doctrine are far more reliable than that of one ignorant and angry anti-Catholic fundamentalist. You offer no reasons why anyone should follow you over the 2,000 year old institution established by Christ. Do you belong to a church or are you a cult of one. If Catholics read the Bible and study their faith, then the ignorance, prejudice and treachery of men like you is immediately exposed. Catholicism = Christianity, pure and simple!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Commandments, Confession, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, Forgiveness, God, Jesus, Justification, Magisterium, Morality, Mortification, Pope, Priests, Repentance, Sacraments, Saints, Salvation, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 4 Comments »

Bishop Kenneth Untener on Women Priests

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Father Joe

The bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, died in 2004. It is not my intention to speak ill of the dead, but I still feel compelled to give a strong critique of his argument in favor of women priests. Giving the appearance of orthodoxy, he maintained the usage of “in persona Christi,” while evacuating it of authentic meaning. His claim of a shift in its understanding “since the 1940′s” is not substantiated since it was already well developed in the scholastic tradition. Our deepening appreciation of it has been a legitimate instance of the operation of the universal ordinary Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As such it takes upon itself a level of certitude, dare I say infallibility, especially in regards to its five citations in the Vatican II documents. Conciliar teachings do not have to be statistically verified. The bishop, trying to find any loophole for women priests ignored this point.

For those unfamiliar, let me summarize his views. He caricatured, and I believe falsely, the teaching as mere “impersonation,” no different from an actor pretending to be someone else in a contemporary drama. Opposed to St. Jerome’s supposedly “false translation” of the Greek (and here I will transliterate) “en prosopo Christou” (2 Corinthians 2:10) as “in persona Christi,” the bishop claimed it really meant “in the presence of Christ” or “before (the face of) Christ.” If the minister only impersonates Christ, and is not actually present in the priest, then his view would open the door to women priests.

Although these renditions of the word “prosopon” have some validity, one cannot so carelessly dismiss the Vulgate Latin Bible. It remains the official ecclesial translation. Further, the terminology “prosopon” was being stretched or advanced in meaning from its routine usage in Greek drama.

In contrast, various critics will avow that the “persona” manifested is the divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity but disavow his male-differentiated humanity. However, Christ’s identity can never be split. Thus, while Bishop Untener would actually evacuate any ontological reality of Christ’s presence at the altar, these other critics would divide and subtract from it.

Ecumenically, Anglo-Catholics and Orthodox churches concur with us, even if they might use different terminology. For Eastern Christians, the priest is considered “an icon of Christ.” It must be remembered that icons are considered more than simple images. They are venerated as somehow holding God’s presence in them. The priesthood takes this iconic identification still further. To say that a priest acts as Christ’s icon means that we can experience the undivided person of Christ in him. To make this identification even more complete, the constitutive element of a priest’s maleness may be supplemented by such accidentals as vestments and a beard.

Bishop Untener may be correct in that the Mass is a drama; but, the priest is more than an actor. Every Mass is Christ’s as the principal celebrant. Unless he is present in the person of the priest, this assertion becomes nonsense. The late bishop minimized the meaning of the “prosopon” or mask and others ignore the Greek source for this idea entirely. An actor in ancient Greek theater would hold up a “prosopon” or face to disguise his countenance. More than simply “impersonating” the character as in modern drama, the face he held allowed him to take unto himself a new, even if pseudo-real, identity. These transformations became so thorough, that many of the ancients considered acting to be a vocation.

In the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, AD, over the identity of Jesus, “prosopon” was understood as an external concrete apparition, the appearance of the “physis.” The “physis” was a set of characteristics or properties, in other words, that which made up the nature of a thing. However, even in this context, the word “prosopon” was strengthened by the term “hypostasis.” [This was because some feared what critics have done regarding the priesthood, dividing or subtracting from Christ.] This last word was closely connected with the term “persona” in the West. The word “person” signified the firm ground from out of which an existing thing took its stand and developed. [It is the person of Christ who stands and renders sacrifice in front of our altars. The priest does not pretend to be Christ. At the Sacrifice of the Mass, he is the undivided Christ.]

The bishop wrote, “In the early centuries we do not see this phrase used to describe the role of the ordained priest.” Why is this? The answer is simple. The Church comes to a further understanding of herself and of her doctrinal treasury through conflict. Christ’s identification with the minister in the liturgy was not at issue. For that matter, even when surrounded by pagan priestesses and heretical ones, the consensus of the Church was so sure that no defense of the male priesthood was thought necessary.

Through all the rhetoric, the bishop was essentially implying that the sexuality and/or body of the human being should not be a determining factor of worthiness for holy orders. Historically, there is a precedent that says otherwise. Indeed, as I have taught before, the Gnostics who copied many Christian rituals possessed a female priesthood. They also denied that Christ was really a human being. If he were not really a man, we are not redeemed. Do we really want to run this course? I think not. One minor bishop does not constitute or veto the whole Magisterium in union with the Pope.

Abusing St. Thomas’ appreciation of instrumental causality, the bishop wrote that “Christ makes use of the instrument of a priest in the sacraments in the same way that a physician makes use of a scalpel — as an instrument, although in this case, an animate instrument.” What he bypasses is that a man is not a scalpel and a priest is not any man. The nature of the instrument must be respected. Christ has so configured a man that through ordination he is capable of making the Lord present through his very person. This is the legitimate instrumentality of the priest at Mass.

The bishop’s article about the priesthood and women is reprinted in his book, THE PRACTICAL PROPHET. The post was a letter to a proponent of women’s ordination.

AMAZON: The Practical Prophet

Filed under: Bible, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Faith, Images, Jesus, Magisterium, Mass, Priestesses, Priests, Sexuality, Women Priests | 8 Comments »

Mary Remained a Perpetual Virgin

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Father Joe

ANTI-CATHOLIC ASSERTION

The critic argues that Mary and Joseph had children, the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

“‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Then where did he get all this?’” (Matthew 13:55-56).

“‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joses, Jude, and Simon? And are not also his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him” (Mark 6:3).

CATHOLIC TRUTH

Mathew’s quoted text itself intimates that the people speaking do not know what they are talking about. They cannot fathom where Jesus has received his special authority and wisdom; indeed, by designating him as “the carpenter’s son,” they are even in the dark about his virgin birth as the incarnate Son of God. If they can be wrong about St. Joseph being the biological father of Jesus, then a cursory reading of these Scriptures may lead us into a similar error regarding Mary and the other family members. Note that they are listed as kin to Christ, cousins perhaps? Nothing more can be certainly determined from the Oriental custom of calling all such, “brothers and sisters.” Not once is Mary called “their” mother. Actually, the phrasing is quite careful to separate Mary, as the mother of Jesus, from these other brethren. Another point of interest is that Jesus on the Cross entrusts Mary to his apostle John, rather than to these kin. If they were actually half brothers and sisters, such would have been understood as a great insult to the family. It just was not done. Another point of correction is the presence of Mary as the beloved matriarch of the early Church. She was protected and cherished by the believing community. This same family of faith, who knew Mary so intimately, would transmit as part of our living sacred tradition the truth that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Also, such virginity was befitting the dignity of Jesus Christ as the unique God-Man and Savior. Looking at the Scriptural citations, there are certain practical problems to the use of these bible passages in the anti-Catholic’s arsenal. Look at the names of the brethren here; Mark 15:40 informs us that James the younger and Joses (Joseph) were the sons of another Mary who was related to the Virgin Mary. As for the others, they may have been cousins, or if a second century work entitled The Protevangelium of James is to be trusted, the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. The image of a widower would collaborate the tradition that Joseph was much older than Mary. Such a view was also supported by other ancient authorities: Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius. St. Jerome, knowledgeable in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, argued that they were cousins. He asserted that Mary (a sister to the Virgin Mary?), the wife of Clopas (also known as Alphaeus), was the actual mother of the brothers and sisters of Christ.

Two of the brethren of Christ are listed as children of another Mary:

And some women were also there, looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome. They used to accompany him and minister to him when he was in Galilee — besides many other women who had come with him to Jerusalem (Mark 15:40-41).

Semitic usage of brother and sister applied also to nephews, nieces, cousins, and others:

He recovered all the possessions, besides bringing back his kinsman [BROTHER] Lot and his possessions, along with the women and the other captives (Genesis 14:16).

Laban said to him: “Should you serve me for nothing just because you are a relative [BROTHER] of mine?” (Genesis 29:15).

Then Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Aaron’s uncle Uzziel, with the order, “Come, remove your kinsmen [BROTHERS] from the sanctuary and carry them to a place outside the camp” (Leviticus 10:4).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Evangelization, Faith, Incarnation, Mary, Saints, Sexuality | Leave a comment »