Sexuality | Blogger Priest

Teachings About Divorce

Posted on September 20, 2010 by Father Joe

This is a reflection upon a two page document sent to me from Bai Macfarlane entitled INCONSISTENT INFORMATION ABOUT DIVORCE, VARIETY OF TEACHINGS:

Father Christopher J. Rossman

Divorce in itself is not a grave (mortal) sin, however. Jesus says, “… whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery” – Matthew 19:9. It’s not the divorce that is a grave sin rather someone engaging in another relationship after the civil divorce. … If one civilly divorces and remains unmarried and chaste no grave sin is committed and the person is not prevented from receiving the sacraments.

I suspect that what Father Rossman means is that while we are dealing with grave matter, the subjective element depends upon a number of factors. While it might be misunderstood and painful to hear, divorce as such is a sin. Yes, I know there are some who would argue otherwise, including clergy; but we cannot allow pastoral considerations and human sentiment to cloud the truth about the matter. I would take exception to redirecting the focus from divorce to adultery; while the offenses are often related (as in the Gospel of Matthew), they are also substantially different. It is not enough to say that as long as the divorced person does not have sexual relations with a person other than the spouse, that the divorce is an insignificant or neutral matter. Pastors may make an accommodation for divorced people to receive the sacraments; but to be quite frank, they often do not even ask the priest if it is okay. It is possible that some divorced people need both Confession and efforts at restitution before the regularization of their status in the Church. Often the fault for the failure of marriages rests with both parties; but it can also be the case that one is innocent of wrongdoing. A person who loves his or her spouse and is faithful to marital obligations would certainly not be culpable of sin if there should be spousal abandonment. The person who selfishly walks away from marriage is guilty of sin and I would argue that the gravity is probably mortal. Those persons who through temptation and/or bad counsel lead others to divorce would also acquire guilt. What makes separation and divorce so very problematic is that spouses have a pledged duty to fulfill the obligations of procreation and fidelity. Spouses have a right to the emotional, physical and spiritual satisfactions of marital love. Those who use sex as a weapon of manipulation in marriages are sinning in a way akin to divorce. Divorce here is understood as more than a legal status; but as the separation of spouses and as their estrangement from the supports proper to this state. A person might divorce his or her spouse and remain both chaste and celibate; however, a sin is committed because the spouse still has needs and a right to a shared life and sexual intimacy. The sin of divorce is precisely this depravation. Arising from this, our Lord intimates about how a man who divorces his wife can be guilty for his own and for the spouse’s adultery, both in actuality and potentially.

There are cases where marriages are defective and for that reason we have an annulment process. But I would urge couples not to date or to pursue romantic entangles until or unless they are free to do so. It may be that some divorced people can never remarry because the first bond is genuine. Are there reasons why a divorce should be pursued? The various grounds for annulments represent a partial list. It might also be the case that a spouse is abusive, violent and dangerous. I knew a case where a woman had to separate from her spouse because he was a bad drunk. He regularly beat her and threatened to kill her and the children. She wanted to preserve the marriage but the value of life and the safety of her children came first. She did not remarry.

Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Atlanta

Please remember that a divorce alone would not affect, or hinder in any way, your participation in the Catholic Church. A divorced Catholic is free to receive the sacraments. … However, if you are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Invalidity (and your former spouse is still living) a problem does arise.

Here too the issue of divorce seems confused with adultery, however, I suspect it is simply the bottom line regarding the law of the Church. Legal norms in the Church have always tended to be minimalistic. A divorced spouse may be the innocent party or he or she might be the source or agent of the breakup. Beyond civil divorce there are some who remain together but live as if they are divorced. These spouses tolerate living together but are both emotionally and physically living distinct lives remote from each other. This is wrong for many of the same reasons why separation and civil divorce are offensive. Those working in a tribunal would hope that people from failed marriages would first seek out their priestly confessors. Before calling it quits, couples should do all they can to work out their problems and, if possible, save their marriages. They should also invoke divine grace and assistance. Attempting (another) marriage without ecclesial approbation is a decisive civil act that places one in conflict with Church teaching and discipline. Here is an explicit and verifiable act with a written record to which the sanctions of Church law quickly respond. However, this does not mean that the couple’s faith and discipleship was not already in trouble. Spouses are supposed to be the first of helpmates in supporting each other in becoming saints. If a marriage falls apart, it is obvious that this goal and preoccupation for mutual holiness has also collapsed.

In the Know with Fr. Joe. (America’s Catholic Television Network)

If you are divorced and not remarried, you can receive communion.

This says what the others said, and it is frequently the practice. But just as many priests lament that so many come up for communion without recourse to the sacrament of penance, similarly divorced believers should change their lives and seek out a priest prior to receiving communion.

North American Conference of Separated and Divorced

There are no laws preventing a divorced Catholic who has not remarried from active participation within a parish. This includes receiving Eucharist and Reconciliation, or participating as a Lector, Eucharistic Minister, Parish Council member, etc. You do not need absolution prior to fully participating.

Reception of communion is not just a legal issue but a spiritual one. Is the person properly disposed for the sacrament? If not, then he or she desperately needs to seek out the counsel, and if possible, the absolution of a priest.

As an aside, the new guidelines reserve the title Lector to those men formally installed and the term Eucharistic Minister to bishops, priests and deacons. Other ordinary ministers would be installed Acolytes. Those who read at Mass are now called Readers. The laity who assist with communion are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. No other terms are currently permitted.

Catholic Answers. Jim Blackburn , Staff Apologist

However, in other cases [for the one in grave fault who destroyed marriage], —as with all serious sin—a divorced person should go to confession immediately, prior to receiving Communion.

Yes, this is exactly the case.

EWTN – Pennsylvania Bishop Pastoral Letter. July 29, 1994

Therefore, it is helpful to keep in mind several distinctions among divorced persons whose previous marriage(s) have not been declared sacramentally invalid by the lawful authority of the church. Such distinctions include first of all those who have not remarried, as well as those who have remarried and seek to live in complete continence. These persons are eligible to receive the Eucharist according to the regular norms of the church.

It might seem that the minimalism of law or norms in this instance is based more upon what one does not do than on what one actually does. Instead of placing a lot of moral weight on divorce, it shifts to the avoidance of adultery. The issue of spousal support and intimacy is not addressed, just the fact that there is no sexual activity. I have to admit that, while the canonists may be correct, such understandings leave me very uncomfortable. The statement here says that remarried couples who “seek to live in complete continence” are eligible to receive the Eucharist. Okay, norms are fulfilled, but serious questions remain. Human laws, even in the Church, may not always satisfy all the prescriptions of divine law. This allowance is probably in reference to those brother-sister internal forum situations known privately to the pastor. I can certainly understand how an older couple might be given such an allowance given mistakes that were made and the approaching proximity of their departure from this veil of tears. But, it could be sorely abused as well. The potential exists for egregious scandal. We only have a couple’s word that they are not sexually involved. Further, what about all the other satisfactions of married love: a shared life, kisses and small embraces, holding hands, bodies resting next to each other on a couch, intimate words and romantic encounters. Continence might not be breeched and yet all these sweet elements still properly belong to someone else, a true spouse forgotten or ignored. I have encountered men who have wept daily at the loss of knowing that the love of their lives is now in another man’s arms. The Church should not forget these poor souls and the lonely pain they feel.

Diocese of Bismark, ND

Can a divorced Catholic receive the sacraments? Yes. There is nothing in the Church’s law that prevents a divorced Catholic from receiving the Eucharist and other sacraments of the Church. A divorced person is fully and completely a member of the Church.

This explanation is much like the ones that have come before. Tribunals are only concerned about the canonical norms. However, in practice many questions must be asked. There is much public debate today about the scandal of sin or complicity in regards to the reception of communion. The American Life League regularly petitions the bishops to tell pro-abortion Catholic politicians not to receive the Eucharist. Similarly, like all believers, divorced Catholics must seriously examine their conscience before partaking of the bread of life. Are they living chastely? If not remarried, are they cohabitating? That is sin or at least the occasion of sin. As far as I know, no one denies that divorced persons are still members of the Church. That does not mean that our relationship with Christ and his Church is everything it should be. Our Lord identifies himself with the beloved in marriage. Marriage is a sacrament which points to Christ’s covenant with his Church. Jesus keeps his promises and will never divorce himself from the Church. Divorce is a fractured sign of this mystery. How can it not touch our relationship with the Church? If Christ will never abandon us then should we not also keep our promises, even when it takes us to the Cross?

EWTN, Colin B. Donovan, STL

By itself civil divorce is not an obstacle to Communion. As a civil action all it does is settle the civil legal effects of marriage (distribution of property, custody of children etc.). … those who are actually responsible for the breakup of the marriage and the failure to be reconciled when possible are indeed guilty of sin and have an obligation to repent and confess their sin before receiving Communion, as would any grave sinner.

Yes, this is precisely the true Catholic answer to the question!

Diocese of Lacross, WI.

Divorce does not mean one can no longer receive Holy Communion. A Catholic is barred from receiving Communion only if he or she goes on to remarry after a divorce, while their previous spouse is still living, and no annulment has been granted in regards to a prior marriage.

This is consistent with the other answers given. However, a number of things are presumed: that there is no attempted marriage and/or ongoing cohabitation and adultery. It is peculiar that no one talks about the wrong of neglecting marital duties. Refusing the sexual advances and the various acts of marital support and intimacy are also sinful. Might such neglect constitute serious sin and inhibit one from receiving communion?

Diocese of Charleston

A divorced Catholic who is neither remarried nor cohabiting is free to receive the sacraments and to be involved in life of the parish. In many cases such individuals can help their fellow parishioners who may be going through or have gone through the pain of marital separation or divorce.

I suspect this response is alluding to organizations of Separated and Divorced Catholics. It is true that they can help people through their pain. However, I often worry that they can inadvertently create other problems. People in these situations are very vulnerable. Acts of kindness can lead to special friendships and intimacy. My suggestion would be that such support should be limited to people of the same sex to avoid the possibility of romantic entanglements. I would also resist efforts to automatically minimize the value and authenticity of failed marriages. Some situations cannot be fixed. This is the hard truth we need to face.

Diocese of Arlington. Catholic Herald. Fr. William P. Saunders

Another question arises concerning the status of a divorced person in the Church. Since divorce involves a civil decree by the state and is not recognized by the Church, a divorced person remains in good standing and may receive the sacraments. However, if a divorced person remarries without a Declaration of Nullity, then strictly speaking, an act of adultery is committed: since the first marriage still is presumed valid, remarriage without an annulment places the person in a state of mortal sin and prevents him from receiving Holy Communion. Therefore, the Church encourages a divorced person who may think he may one day remarry to see his parish priest and pursue the annulment process.

Yes, admittedly this is the practice in the United States. Are we too quick to encourage the annulment process? Tribunals will not even begin the investigation until a divorce decree is acquired. Many couples do not seek marriage counseling or some time has elapsed when they finally contact a priest. Often one spouse wants to salvage a marriage and the other does not. Many annulments are pursued after people have become entangled in new romantic relationships. In other words, many if not most annulments are responses, not to divorce, but to what are externally regarded as adulterous situations. Due to weakness and passion, there is often already a second marriage although conducted civilly or in another religious denomination. I heard a priest once joke that we have to teach our people that Catholic divorce is not annulment but murder. The bond is “unto death do we part.” The six month preparation period is precisely to stress the permanence of the bond. However, even at the initial stage, many couples are already brushing aside Catholic teaching by living together and having sexual relations. It is my contention that the disregard for virginity prior to marriage is a poison leading to infidelity and divorce later on. Annulments cannot be assured. I have had a few denied. There were no grounds. It is quite rare that these adulterous couples would then separate or not seek marriage outside the Church. Tell them to separate and they look at you with shock and bewilderment. All the Church is doing is trying to keep them to their word. They promised fidelity to a spouse and before Almighty God. Promises are meant to be kept.

Archbishop of Cagyan de Oro City, Philppines

Archbishop Antonio J. Ledesma of Cagyan de Oro City has strongly criticized a proposed bill that would legalize divorce in the Philippines and said that the move would destroy the moral fiber of Philippine society. “Legalizing something that is immoral will not make it right, but will instead make it worse,” said Archbishop Ledesma.

Similar arguments were made in Ireland. But secularism seems to be winning. Here we do see a “disconnect” from the practice in other nations. Tribunals in the West require a divorce before permitting annulment applications. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the Church is arguing against legalized divorce. This is the traditional stance and it best reflects Catholic teaching about the indissolubility of marriage. Divorce is not regarded as an option. For better or worse, marriage is for keeps!

Archbishop of Malta and Bishop of Gozo

[From the Archbishop of Malta] As there are those who promote divorce in a pluralistic society, the Church’s mission is to promote the stability of marriage, insisting on the moment of consent as the focal point of one’s commitment. In divorce there is a shift from this focal point towards each moment which is presented as giving the spouse a potential right to consider his/her consent and commitment thus ending one’s marriage.

The philosophical interpretation of the archbishop is on the mark. Sacraments represent special moments where promises or vows can be renewed but not denounced. A person is baptized and becomes a child of God and member of the Church. A man is ordained and he is forever configured to Christ the high priest. A couple is married and the two become one flesh. There is a new and enduring reality. Christianity believes that there are particular moments when we take a stand and define ourselves. Secular society today runs away from perpetual commitments and consistency. No lines are drawn and change is embraced where people are constantly redefining themselves and their lives. These views are incompatible. One promotes order or structure and obedience; the latter brings about chaos and confusion. Christians are people of the promise in a world of broken promises.

Prefect of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Roman Curia, Francis Cardinal Arinze

Divorce tears marriage apart. It desolates both husband and wife. It leaves the children not only in tears but also in misery. We do not deny that there can be serious disagreement between husband and wife, but divorce is not the solution. When husband and wife have a disagreement, they should reflect, pray, sit together and discuss. Accept fault where you are wrong, ask for pardon, or consult a priest or other spiritual adviser, but do not divorce.

Cardinal Arinze, as always, is quite right. The problem that pastors face is that the couples we marry, and the many that get divorced, are only superficially Christian. Large numbers are ignorant of their faith and those who are informed lack a basic conviction to live out their Christianity. If there is rebellion and sin at the beginning of a bond, why should we think it would not show its face when the marriage falls apart? They do not see what is wrong with fornication and later explain away culpability for adultery and divorce. We hear things like this: “Our love died. We grew apart. We married too young. God would not want us to stay in a loveless marriage. I have fallen in love with someone else. It was good while it lasted. It is time to move on. We only stayed together for the children. We are not the same people anymore.” None of these reasons is sufficient for divorce. How many have the mentality that divorce should not even be placed upon the table as an option? Unfortunately, very few think this way. Often it is as if they speak an entirely different language from the priest.

[CCC 2385]

Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

[CCC 2384]

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death.

The universal catechism also condemns divorce. It is wrong in itself and it acts as a poison to marriage and the family throughout society. The bond of marriage is a facet of the natural law. Men and women were created to enter into a lifelong union. Unlawful marriages by people who are not free violate both natural law and divine positive law. Civil law once reinforced this basic truth, but not so any longer. Indeed, no-fault divorce and attempts to redefine marriage for same-sex couples shows how the corruption is escalating.

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Catholic, Divorce, Holy Communion, Marriage, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | 6 Comments »

More Voices from the Other Side: Divorce & Remarriage

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Father Joe

This is a follow up post to a previous one focusing on “the other side” of divorce and upon those spouses who wanted to preserve their unions. The issue of Church censure, annulments and remarriage weigh heavily in the discussion. Here are a number of voices in dialogue about this important matter. The first respondent begins by remarking upon Karl’s charges against the last two popes for not doing enough.

FATHER LONE RANGER:

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are part of the problem? I do not think so. They have sought to address the problem of invalid annulments, but many canonists will not listen to them. The Holy Father has wanted to prevent scandal and so there is a great deal of communication that is never made privy to the general public. The issue is and was extensive dissent, not simply among ragtag theologians, but wholesale among bishops and chancery clergy.

Why does the problem remain? Liberal theologians are also often canonists and the same passivity that the Church exhibits towards politicians and morals is also revealed when facing distraught divorced people who want to erase a mistake and marry again. For all practical purposes, the Church is involved with a silent schism and the Pope knows that if he pushes too hard, the bulk of the American Church will defect, bishops and all. It will be England and Henry VIII revisited with a vengeance.

[At this point he offers a prayer for Karl.]

Dear God, we ask you to bring healing to Karl and justice to the cause that he feels so deeply. Easy divorce is a violation that attacks at the heart of the marriage bond. Vows are made and should be kept. Marriages are not ended by judicial decree or even by Church courts, but by the death of a spouse. Then and only then is a true marriage ended, and yet, even here, there is no end to the love that a husband and wife share. Bless Karl in his life, and watch over and protect his five children. The fruit of married love is real and everlasting (Holly, Mary, Margaret, Monica and Karl Michael). May the good Lord envelop Karl in his loving embrace and give him peace. Amen.

Sign the petition against No-Fault Divorce:
http://www.catholicmarriagepetition.org/index.htm

MARY:

Many of us have been abandoned by our spouses. Life is tough, Karl. But we are not living for joy & happiness on this earth. We are trying to get to HEAVEN …. There is justice after this life if not during. This is why we pray & pray for conversion in our unfaithful spouses so that their hearts will be softened and they return to Christ before their death and be able to obtain heaven. And we pray and pray for ourselves …for the grace to be faithful to God’s Law (especially that of living a chaste life, which is so very lonely) and the grace to imitate Christ in His meek carrying of His cross. And we pray for our children that their hearts not be hardened by the pain of loss they suffer or by being witnesses to bad example (most likely) from both parents.

No, Karl, life is not fair. I also lost a son in a car accident. Does this give me the right to rage against God at the injustice? To rage against others who have not lost children simple because they do not share this particular cross? …To ignore my surviving children, and my other duties because of my pain? My answer to these questions has been NO! You might be surprised how others answer these questions…peek in on a support group for bereaved parents, you may be shocked. As sad as these situations may be or should I say as sad as the sufferings we all face in life may be, we must be willing to do what we can to correct injustice on this earth without going against God’s Law (because the end never justifies the means). Then, we must accept our fate as God’s Will for us and continue to serve Him in love.

WI CATHOLIC:

Although I do not fight in the same way or anger as Karl does, I have to agree with him on nearly everything he has said about the lack of help/assistance for those of us who believe/KNOW that we ARE in a Valid Marriage no matter what a civil divorce court has said, or the world has said… OR Tribunals have said.

I have been told to “Trust the Holy Spirit” and petition the Tribunals, with the additional statements that the alcoholism is a clear indication of NULLITY, and would be adequate grounds to a Null Decision.

Point One: I do not believe alcoholism (sickness and heath, better or worse, good times and bad) are grounds for determining that our marriage was NULL on the day we appeared before God and Man and pledged our vows “all the days of my life.”

Point Two: I am not able to sign the basic forms that are needed to petition due to the fact that I must state that I believe my Marriage to have been Null from the beginning. I do NOT believe that.

Point Three: In a Church which teaches/has always taught that ALL marriages are VALID until proven beyond doubt that they were not, before a Tribunal, I cannot buy into the fact that the Tribunals are being led by the Holy Spirit when the first contact with Respondents is to call my spouse my “FORMER SPOUSE.” Sorry, but the Civil Law means nothing, and my spouse is still my spouse regardless of that decree. CIVILLY he may not be, but in my Church, he is! To me, and to many other faithful spouses who live their vows regardless of what MAN says, in obedience to what GOD says (Jesus Himself four times in the Gospel, as well as in Church teachings)–this is a slap in the face, and a clear indication where “the spirit” lies… and discernment can lead one to believe that it may well be a “false spirit of compassion” that rules the day in our US Tribunals that seems to favor those who destroy the marriage, often by adultery/divorce/civil marriage to the “lover”/and finally, a petition to annul the first marriage in favor of the second, which was based on adultery to begin with.

Point Four: Sites with an appealing name such as “Save Our Sacrament” are not pointed out to be dissident. “Internal Forum” is blatantly featured, in spite of the fact that it is NOT to be used for Marriage/Divorce, and no one in the hierarchy calls them on it publicly. No one preaches the Truth on Internal Forum in the local parishes where it is “taught” by priests, etc. It is allowed to stay online for years (as in St Anthony Messengers article by Fr John Catoir on the topic). THIS is SCANDAL.

http://www.saveoursacrament.org/

S.O.S. is a member of Catholic Organizations for Renewal (COR).

http://www.cta-usa.org/COR.html#list

Yet, the very cry of most of us who do NOT want NULL verdicts, but the TRUTH of the VALIDITY of our marriages is corrupted by this website. What is promoted there is not saving the Sacrament. It is watering down Truth to fit society’s plunge into the Pit. It is, essentially, what Henry VIII said/taught after Rome refused to grant a NULL verdict about his marriage to Catherine of Arragon.

I do love my Church, and there is no place else I would go. I could not leave Him (The Eucharist) any more than I can quit my vows. To do so would be doing to HIM what my spouse did to ME so long ago— Desertion— forced unilateral divorce— attempting to say that something that EXISTS never really did in the first place.

Yet my Church, which used to defend those of us who remain faithful till death, vehemently, has done this to us by allowing the US Tribunals to grant so many NULL verdicts and to tell us that this is “right” and “true” and “spirit-led.”

If there is a schism here in the US, it will ONLY be VISIBLE evidence of what is already happening! “My people PERISH for lack of KNOWLEDGE!” …of TRUTH. Truth needs to be preached, and to be acted on, or “the spirit of compassion” (which I firmly believe is a False spirit) will continue to overtake Truth. While the Gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church—many of the members of that Church may end up on the other side of those very Gates.

In our situation, the civil wife KNOWS the Truth, and told our children that they (civil wife and my spouse) cannot go to Communion because according to the Church, they are living in sin—her words in the very beginning of that “marriage.”

Another in our family, an in-law, was told by her priest-friend that as long as SHE knew in her heart that the first marriage wasn’t valid, she could avoid the Tribunal and still receive Communion…and she does on the rare occasion she attends Mass.

No one refutes this from any pulpit in our area (and I would be willing to bet, in few nationally). In fact, I have heard only ONE sermon on Jesus’ words on divorce (I believe they show up once every three years in the Gospel readings of Sunday Mass, though it MAY be twice) in all the years since our separation in the early 80′s! And that was watered down….

Karl has very valid points. His anger is, in many ways, justified.

Too many are willing to compromise to “protect the feelings” of those in the pews who may need to hear Truth in order to save their very souls. It is Truth that sets us free, not compromise, not justifying Sin and condoning it with an official “verdict” that is based on today’s psychiatric diagnoses.
His People Perish for Lack of Knowledge… and Hell is for Eternity.

FATHER JOE:

The bit about “sickness and heath, better or worse, good times and bad” are not in reference to things that would invalidate a marriage in the present. If you become a drunk after you are married, there are no grounds for invalidation. If you develop psychosis after marriage, you are still married. If a man has a fishing accident with a hook while on honeymoon and castrates himself, as long as there has been a consummation, he is truly married. But, if any of these things happen prior to the marriage day, then the couple is out of luck. Annulments are granted because people conceal problems from the priest and sometimes try to do so even from themselves. An annulment means they should NEVER have gotten married in the first place and that the sacrament or natural bond is not really present. There is a legal union (both in the Church and in civil society) and for that reason children remain legitimate even after an annulment.

Alcoholism can vary by degrees; however, a person who is grossly incapable of dealing with his own life can hardly make a marital commitment to another. Like paralysis, certain maladies can make the fulfillment of marital duties impossible or highly improbable. If such is the case before the vows are taken and on the appointed day for a marriage, the bond could indeed be invalidated. Indeed, if priests are aware of a problem like alcoholism, we are forbidden to marry the couple. I ask about addictions and diseases prior to witnessing marriages. If they lie to me that deceit can also invalidate the marriage. People have a natural right to marriage, but some like me freely renounce that right and others are incapable of it because of either faulty intention, dishonesty, impotence, addiction, hatred (rejection) of children, physical incapacitation, sexual corruption, or mental aberration.

A person who is HIV positive cannot be married lawfully in the Church to a non-infected person because non-contraceptive intercourse required for consummation is possibly deadly to the spouse. A paralyzed man cannot engage in the marital act and get married, with the possible exception of those with artificial intervention to restore potency. Couples who are sterilized are routinely required to attempt surgical reversals in order to have a sacramental wedding. People who are mentally deranged and/or who take drugs for mental diseases are not normally able to marry. Medication to control various mental illnesses would deform a fetus. Alcoholism or any other kind of serious drug addiction invalidates the marriage vows and bond. A heroin fiend cannot truly fulfill his vows and is lying to his beloved and the priest. The same goes for gross alcoholism. It is a sickness, but there is a moral element related to it. I knew a man who was an active alcoholic who had his prior bond annulled on the grounds that his addiction made him incapable of marriage. He then wanted to get married again but a “monitum” prohibited any priest or deacon from marrying him until a doctor certified that he had found sobriety. He remained a drunk and so he could not marry again. The last time I saw him, he was begging for money on the streets.

You write: “I am not able to sign the basic forms that are needed to petition due to the fact that I must state that I believe my Marriage to have been Null from the beginning. I do NOT believe that.” Fine and good, you should not sign them if you disagree. Indeed, if such is your conviction, you should never remarry even if the spouse does so, in or out of the Church. Marriage is a one-time sacrament. I cannot say that the Tribunals are always right about these things. The culpability is more upon them than any individuals they mislead. However, the process, while imperfect, is an attempt to protect the indissolubility of marriage while being compassionate to those who might have grounds for nullity.

I am not familiar with the website SAVE OUR SACRAMENT although I am familiar with internal forum between couples (usually elderly) and the pastor. They are required to live as brother and sister and they are not to advertise the nature of their relationship so as to avoid scandal. I worked with just such a couple many years ago who were in their 90′s. They have since passed away.

If your husband has civilly remarried, he is not in good standing with the Church. He is still required to go to Sunday Mass and to make sure that any children receive the sacraments. However, as long as he cohabitates with this other woman, the status is regarded as adultery and no personal sentiment or feeling on his part would allow him to receive communion. Indeed, he cannot receive absolution from a priest, either. He is apparently in a state of mortal sin. His in-laws are grievously wrong to tell him otherwise. They are numbing his conscience and that of his civil-wife to the fact that their eternal salvation is at stake.

I cannot speak about your case because I do not know the particulars. Since there is a civil marriage, I take it that no annulment was granted. If you felt that the first marriage was the valid one, then you are right to oppose the annulment, although they are sometimes granted despite opposition. If your husband and his civil-wife were really good Catholics, they would not want to live in an adulterous relationship. If you really loved someone, would you do something that would deprive them of the Eucharist and maybe even cost them their salvation in Christ? I asked this of a priest who left and attempted marriage. He said he loved the girl. I argued that he did not love her enough and that he was selfish. Better for a priest to suffer in his loneliness than to cost another the gift of sanctifying grace and the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. He did not know what to say. He knew I was right. He said he would get laicized. But at that time he was still married to the Church and what if she should die before laicization was granted? He would have to live with the terrible possibility that he sent to hell the person he most loved in the whole world.

I preach upon this subject of divorce and annulments, as well as upon the crisis of premarital sex and cohabitation. Not all priests are silent. I am sorry about your pain. You can pray for him and continue to witness to your vows. We all want joy, but often what we get is the Cross.

WI CATHOLIC:

I have reconciled myself to living my vows alone till one of us dies. Our civil-forced-divorce was way back in 1985, and I have long been able to praise Him and to forgive my spouse. I pray for him and for the civil wife all the time. (She and I have spoken; she has been praying for my health recently, much to the chagrin of xxxxxxxxx). My primary desire is his salvation and sobriety, as well as mine. Hers is secondary. Reconciliation at this stage is totally up to God Himself.

Yes, it is MY understanding also what counts is prior to marriage, and the wedding day itself, not what is diagnosed 10 plus years after the marriage. But that is not what happened in our area, and it is not what I have been told by at least three priests. I have been me telling THEM this fact.

I can believe that you do teach on the subject, Father Joe, because you are one of the rare ones who speaks of this topic ONLINE, too. But in most places, it is avoided like the plague.

Civil divorce is taken as proof that the marriage was not a marriage most of the time now, or “it would not have ended up in the divorce courts.” But this is not true.

We are still a largely forgotten group of very Faithful Catholics, most often looked upon as pitiable, rigid, angry, bitter… even “pus-filled.” I assure you, most of us are not. When WE plead, “Save our Sacrament,” WE are begging the Church to stand with us regarding the validity of our marriages. We are not looking for a “way out,” but help to work toward reconciliation, healing, and maintaining the validity and permanency that Jesus Himself insisted upon.

As for Internal Forum, I cannot begin to claim the education others have, but I have spent the past 25 years learning as much as possible. One source:
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and now Pope Benedict XVI writes forcefully on the subject of the indissolubility of marriage. He concludes such a statement regarding the International Theological Commission’s Propositions on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage:

I would underscore that what is at stake in respect to the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage is nothing less than the Church’s fidelity to the radicalism of the Gospel. “The severity does not derive from a purely disciplinary law or from a type of legalism. It is rather a judgment pronounced by Jesus Himself (Mk 10:6ff). Understood in this way, this severe norm is a prophetic witness to the irreversible fidelity of love that binds Christ to His Church. It shows also that the spouses’ love is incorporated into the very love of Christ (Eph. 5:23-32).”[6]

In short, because marriage is an irrevocable covenant established by God, it is not a mere personal and private act. Marriage consent pertains to the common good and directly effects the Church. Subsequently, a mere personal and private act cannot substitute for a judgement of marriage nullity. In determining such a grave matter, only the Church herself, acting in the name of Christ, has competence to pass judgement.

http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=54

God bless! (I can still understand Karl’s anger and frustration.)

KARL: Hang in there, WI Catholic, I do love the Catholic Church, just can’t live with her.

WI CATHOLIC: Thank you, Karl. God bless you!

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Catholic, Divorce, Family, Marriage, Morality, Sexuality, Sin, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Our Pro-Life Commitment

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Father Joe

The Cemetery of the Innocents

Here is a picture of me and the Knights of Columbus who set up 721 crosses that represent the children lost to abortion in one hour of one work day. This MEMORIAL OF THE INNOCENTS was set up at Holy Family Church in Mitchellville in 2009 and every year since then. We often have it up until the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. We received a lot of support although there were a few complaints. One lady argued against putting such a thing up at Christmas time. I explained that Advent and Christmas was the perfect time. During Advent we recall the Christ-child in the womb and on Christmas he is born. We are reminded that every child is a reflection of the Christ-child. Another person argued that it was insensitive as she was a pro-choice Catholic. I told her that she was deceived. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Christian; abortion attacks the central mystery of the Incarnation. Abortion is murder and as such it is a repudiation of Christ’s Gospel of Life.

One of my favorite memories is working with the American Life League back in 2005 and the CRUSADERS FOR LIFE. Here is a reposting of the news around that event at my old parish, Holy Spirit Church:

A.L.L. Crusaders Come to Washington 2005

A dozen young people from colleges across the country walked from Augusta, Maine to Washington, DC in “Defense of the Catholic Church” and to spread the message that you cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion. Nevertheless, while many have applauded young people for taking up the “right to life” cause, this group of remarkable crusaders was purportedly banned from speaking in churches by several dioceses like Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Myself, Dr. Grier & a Crusader

The American Life League ran a series of stinging ads challenging the American bishops to enforce canon law and to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege when pro-abortion politicians and others (who have made such “public” stands) take it upon themselves to receive Holy Communion. The young people have shown no spite or anger, only sadness that some of the nation’s shepherds have chosen to remain on the sidelines. One priest remarked that the ads in protest were so severe that the American Life League owed the leaders of the Church an apology. However, others thought that these good men should at least have shown the same respect and hospitality to the young marchers for life as they have in the past to the high profile anti-life politicians. While they were able to find lodging in the city, they attended 9:00 AM Mass at Holy Spirit Church on Friday, July 30 and were invited to say a few words afterwards. I contacted the archdiocese’s Pro-Life Office several weeks earlier about the matter to insure a level of approbation and to insure proper discretion. (Although the ads pained him, to his credit, Cardinal McCarrick did not formally forbid the young people to speak in his churches. Throughout, nothing the young people said violated the archdiocese’s rules against participation in partisan politics– they did not name politicians by name, did not tell people for whom they should vote, and spoke with respect in regard to the Church’s shepherds.) Following the celebration, a reception was held in the Parish House were the young people had a hearty breakfast and got to meet parishioners. Also in attendance was SK Reginald Grier, a parishioner, a fourth degree Knight of Columbus and volunteer member of the archdiocesan Office for Black Catholics. John Stakem, a Knight of Columbus from St. Pius X Council, and past parishioner was present, too. John Stakem and Joseph Markauskas were long-time pro-life volunteers and were involved with the local pregnancy center. Joe and Betty Markauskas had even offered to give the young people housing while in town. We were very pleased that the director for the Forestville Pregnancy Center was present, Chyllene McLaughlin, along with her assistant. We wanted to communicate to these young people that they were not alone. Holy Spirit Parish, the Knights of Columbus, and the Pregnancy Center in the larger pro-life community, was very much behind them.

ALL Crusaders at Holy Spirit Parish

May God bless them for their sacrifices and may their witness bear fruit.

DISCUSSION

FRANK: News releases indicate that the Church after Vatican II had converted the Kennedys and other Catholic politicians into believing that the liberal backing of the culture of death is acceptable.

FATHER JOE: What news releases were these? Cite them; I would like to read further. As far as I recall, John Kennedy was chastised by churchmen for his liberal response about how little his faith would inform his work as president. As for the other Kennedys and the issue of abortion, I fail to see how Vatican II can be blamed for their pro-abortion stances. I have read and studied all the Vatican II documents and post-conciliar documents. Nothing comes to mind that would condone such thinking against the Gospel of Life. Are we throwing mud again? Give me specifics, please.

FRANK: Having attended the seminaries after Vatican II where the divinity of Christ was challenged, as well as the papacy, and all that was to be infallible before the “Catholic reformation” of 1962-1965; what is your take on recent developments and the continued blasphemies to this day condoned by the Church where the USCCB still can’t come to a consensus to deny our Lord to baby-killing Catholic politicians?

FATHER JOE:

Certainly there was a heightened stress upon the humanity of Christ in many theological schools after Vatican II. However, I do not recall ever being taught that Jesus was not a divine Person.

Fr. Patrick Granfield taught my class on the papacy at Catholic University and his lectures defended the Holy Father’s authority with a great deal of explanation.

Those things that were changed were not deemed infallible but rather mutable accidentals. This thinking was even shared by Pope Pius XII prior to Vatican II on matters like the prehistoric generation of human beings and the liturgy.

A revision of the liturgy was in the working stages going back to the 1930′s and 40′s. The reformed liturgy we have now has lasted a few decades and will probably remain for many more, although with the old liturgy alongside and with continuing adaptations by the Holy See. We have had to suffer the experimental phase, but Pope Benedict XVI said that such has come to an end.

As for the passivity of churchmen in reference to Holy Communion and the standing of pro-abortion politicians, such is also not attributable to Vatican II. The Church has gone through periods in the past where it was the lackey for parliaments, kings and queens. The Popes made clear statements from the 1600′s onward that slavery was detestable and should be abandoned. However, Catholics owned slaves in the colonies and later in the United States of America. The Jesuit landowners of Maryland had slaves. Bishops were often mute on the subject, except for admonishing their baptism in the faith. Dissent is not something new but something very old.

PADRE XYZ:

Father Joe, Your welcome to the pro-life young people did not go unnoticed. I know it cost you personally. I think you can be rude and you definitely lack tact, but it did take some nerve to stand virtually alone and make the challenge against silence or business as usual. You honestly shared your heart to the bishops and your brother priests.

You asked…

Would you give communion to Nazis who promoted the murder of Jews?

Would you give communion to White Supremacists who incited the lynching of Blacks?

Why should we prize the life in the womb any less or their murders as somehow less grievous?

Silence befell all the big guns. You lost a lot of friends that day. If you had career hopes in the church, they were suddenly shattered. Hushed and whispered voices were the only response, “How do we shut this priest up?”

You became an embarrassment. I could not do what you did. You angered a lot of people. You took a promise of obedience and you were reprimanded for your slight as an act of betrayal. Some of us witnessed it, although you were left unnamed.

You changed after that, became quiet, even sullen. It was as if something died in you. You gained weight.

I know you were disappointed in me. But to be frank, I was afraid. Who are we to question the shepherds over us? What happens if we tell the majority of Catholic politicians they are no longer welcome at the altar?

Take care of yourself.

FATHER JOE: I was going to erase this comment. I still might. If you are who I think you are, email me. Peace!

(I am not really brave. I speak my mind and I love the Church. When all is said and done, I do as I am told. I am the Church’s man. Some would contend that I am too conservative or right wing. But how can we be too committed to the Gospel of Life? Every day I work to control my temper. As long as I can remember, I have been very passionate about our faith and its values. Am I ambitious? Like most priests, it is nice to know that one is appreciated and that one’s talents are acknowledged. However, by comparison to most priests that I know, my rating would be very low. It is not false humility but the truth when I say that I count myself as the least of my brothers. As for the bishops, it must be a frightful responsibility they carry. Who would want it? They are criticized from every side. It is easy for us to judge, but we do not walk in their shoes. Pray for priests and pray, especially for our bishops. They are Christ’s apostles in the world today.)

DR: I nominated you for a pro-life blog award (FATHER JOE Blog).

JOHN: Fr. Joe, abortion is murder. These babies can’t speak for themselves. Other bishops have stood up and said priests should not give communion to pro-choice politicians as they have the power to stop the murder (Bishop Burke-former bishop of St. Louis archdiocese and Bishop Finn of Kansas City diocese, for instance.) I’m glad priests like you and Fr. Frank Pavone speak out on this issue. It’s a serious matter and it should be treated as such. Thanks for all you do.

LENBER:

“President Bush has had a very cozy relationship with the Vatican, and set a presidential record by meeting with the Pope six times.”

Very cozy indeed, sometimes for the good, and at other times for utterly and criminally contra-productive [things], such as siding with Bush in Criminal Wars (for the Vatican just Abortion is a Crime) or siding with Israel on their Criminal Occupation of Palestine.

All Thanks to Vatican II Double Crossers.

FATHER JOE: I am not sure I would coin the Bush Doctrine or International efforts in such negative terms. However, as for the Pope, you seem to be terribly deceived. The Vatican opposed the invasion of Iraq. Tarek Aziz (the former president) was a Catholic. He made a retreat in Rome and saw the Pope (John Paul II) the week prior to the invasion. The state of Israel is also not entirely happy that the Vatican, again and again, sides with Palestinians (who are largely Islamic but include an ancient Christian community). Formal recognition and diplomatic ties were held up because of Vatican concerns for the Palestinian people. The late Arafat, at the end of his life, remarked that he saw the Vatican as his ally in the conflict for Palestinian rights. Zionism was condemned by both the UN and by the Church. Arafat used to attend the Christmas Mass in Bethlehem with his wife (who is a Christian). The Catholic Church is no one’s stooge, not for Bush and not for Israel. The Holy Father (both JPII and BXVI) has spoken to President Bush, (he meets a lot of people) and they share much in regard to the unborn, however on matters like the Middle East and capital punishment, there is a great divide.

MICHAEL:

Tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Think of the millions of lives that were snuffed out in this “free” country.

May God have mercy on us!

GENUS LILIUM:

I am completely against abortions. I have children and I have learned that some vaccinations are grown off of human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue, not to mention all the other chemicals, heavy metals, and animal products. That seems like it might be a problem to me. Now that I know this, would it be wrong for me to continue to vaccinate my children? Is it just a money scheme? I really don’t want that stuff in my kids.

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Eucharist, Morality, Politics, Priests, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Youth | Leave a comment »

Divorce & Remarriage, a Witness from the Other Side

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Father Joe

I want to share a response to my remarks about Catholic teaching from a man hurt and angry about his wife’s divorce and subsequent remarriage. While we only know his side of the case, I found myself very sympathetic toward his concerns. No annulment was granted and yet it appears that her pastor permitted her to return to the sacraments. This is problematical and, not privy to the situation, I am at a loss as to what the extenuating circumstances might be. The reader should be warned that while I censored a couple of words, the language is sometimes harsh and crude. Further, we have many good people who have suffered divorce, received proper annulments and have started to rebuild a life wounded by an earlier bad and invalid marriage. I praise the Lord for how the Church and divine grace has brought healing and hope to their lives. But this post is about someone who is still hurting and who feels left out or abandoned. We do not know the grounds for the divorce or why the annulment was denied. What we see is a man angry that his wife divorced him; angry that she has married again and will not be coming home; and angry that a seemingly passive Church will not excommunicate and punish her.

Here is what Karl wrote, please note that my response immediately follows:

As a victim of a destroyed marriage due to the Catholic Church’s acceptance and encouragement of divorce, adultery and remarriage without an annulment (which is exactly the situation I faced), your question of divorce is invalid and shows that you really do not know what is going on in the Catholic Church.

I speak from experience.

I have seen tremendous evil and have begged for intervention at every level in the Catholic Church and only am ignored in spite of the FACTS!

Father Joe, the Church is a whore and the clergy are her pimps and none of them care to really understand the evil they are about.

With a broken heart, I say this is absolutely true and if the Pope had the COURAGE to give me a private audience, along with my adulterous wife, her lover and all of our children, he would be heartbroken if he opened his mind, which I think is beyond him. He would see what I have seen and see how my pleas for justice and for healing a Sacramental marriage have been ridiculed and ignored, while the adultery of my wife and her lover, in the face of two Roman Rotal decisions in favor of OUR SACRAMENT have been encouraged and supported for now over sixteen years!

Show some guts and get me a Papal audience, at the Church’s expense and the Pope will never be the same about these issues if he could but open his mind and LISTEN.

For the record, such as this commentary, it is a scandal and should not be said, unless it IS true; before Jesus Christ I have stated herein what is the TRUTH and am very willing to be held accountable for it, but only by those capable of objective, truthful analysis and free from assailing by any legal entity or ecclesial entity. I know their blood thirst for vengeance.

You may be a nobody among priests, Father Joe, but what you have read here is the TRUTH. Ignore it or say it is the rant of a madman and your Savior will know what is in your heart.

You can also be assured that there are many others who have experienced what I have and know this but who are ignored by the Catholic Church.

We DO NOT NEED OR WANT kind words. We DO NOT WANT spiritual direction.

We want accountability among the priests and bishops for what has been done to us. And we want it done publicly since publicly our marriage has been violated.

We want JUSTICE, not VENGEANCE.

We want our SACRAMENTS RESPECTED AND SUPPORTED BY ACTIONS NOT WORDS AND FALSELY PIOUS WORDS!

We want our marriages healed, which in cases like this can only be accomplished with Canonical sanctions – EXCOMMUNICATION.

Excommunication is supposed to be used to restore a person to the state of grace but instead nothing is done while our spouses are completely accepted by the Church as a couple, albeit not married in the Church, but nevertheless functioning as a married couple, while usually deceiving all by saying the arrangements are “brother and sister.” All this is with Rotal decisions stating just the opposite.

When was the last time brothers and sisters dated or took a romantic vacation together?

I dare you to have the [deleted] to preach about this scandal from your pulpit. I would come to hear you and answer questions if you had the guts and were willing to openly challenge the Bishops and the Pope.

I would like to hear what you think, but do not waste my time with piety if you are moved to believe that there is some truth in what I have told you. (I have heard so much [deleted] empty words from priests!) But I am passed being patient/understanding unless the person is willing to go to the wall with me on this issue.

You have no idea of the rage that this injustice breeds or the guilt we feel for our rage and our desperate desire to get rid of all the anger, to heal our marriages to forgive and to be forgiven. But not a single Bishop, at least in the US, cares enough to make this a prominent issue for the press, since the rest of the Church will do NOTHING.

Karl

RESPONSE FROM FATHER JOE

Dear Karl,

I am sorry about what happened to you in your marriage. Even the Holy See has offered subtle warnings and guidance about the large number of annulments in the United States. The response is usually that we have the largest number of canon lawyers in the world or that Americans are generally immature and have difficulty making true commitments. Along with you, I think there is rampant abuse in the system. However, just because divorce and remarriage seems easy in this nation, and I have only had two annulment cases out of countless ones submitted that were turned down, still the truth remains that Jesus hates divorce and it is labeled “sin.” Admittedly, there are priests who would disagree with me, at least as to how this teaching is expressed. Certainly the Separated and Divorced Catholics groups might find such a verdict painful; however, I find disturbing that a number of sanctioned support groups often function as dating services for men and women who are not free to marry or even to have romantic relationships (adultery) . I must quickly add that this is NOT the case with all groups which focus on healing after these losses.

I know it is anger and frustration speaking when you label the Church “a whore” and all her clergy “pimps.” But remember, that no matter how sinful the membership (including the clergy), the Church is holy because Christ is holy. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As for clergy, yes we have more than our share of rascals; but I would contend, from my own associations, that most of them are good men who love the Lord and sacrifice much in the service of his people. Good priests keep their promises, just as we want married couples to keep theirs.

It would seem that if the Roman Rota ruled in favor of the sacrament of marriage between you and your wife, then the Pope is actually already on your side. Unfortunately, it is a big Church and even papal universal jurisdiction has a hard time breeching the mechanizations of the local churches and the various bishops. One of the reasons that Rome insists that a second tribunal affirm or cancel the decision of the primary tribunal is to help insure justice.

I know a good man, and a devout Catholic, who suffers daily because his wife left him for another man. He fought the divorce and later he tried to stop the annulment. However, he failed. He still goes to Mass and often he weeps at prayer in loss for her and in distress about the Church. He is absolutely convinced, despite the verdict of the marriage tribunal, that she is still his wife. He spurns suggestions that he should date and marry again. That would be adultery, he tells everyone, and knowing him I would be inclined to agree with him. I never met his wife and cannot say what kind of person she is, but knowing her husband (or ex-husband) my impression of her is not good. I am not blind that such things are going on. But neither can I water down what has always been the official teaching of the Church, and a prohibition (against divorce) that comes from the very mouth of Jesus.

The difficulty is that there are some invalid and unlawful marriages.

If the groom sleeps with the maid of honor the night before the wedding, I would say there is something seriously wrong already with the necessary intention.

If the man is partially paralyzed and impotent, he cannot lawfully consummate the marriage.

If there is an absolute opposition to children and intercourse is always contraceptive, the marriage is negated by the rejection of its principal object or good.

If the girl’s “pappy” forced the boy to marry his daughter at the end of a shotgun, then coercion negates the authenticity of the bond.

I have even turned down weddings that other priests eventually witnessed, as when one or both of the parties is mentally deranged. I recall one lady who was a heavily medicated paranoid schizophrenic. The drugs that drowned out the invisible voices would deform any child conceived. I recommended that she keep a platonic friendship, but that God was not calling her to marriage. They went to another priest and he did the deed. She got pregnant and had to go off medication. As a screaming insane person, necessity required that she be tied to a bed for months. Her husband walked off, like I suspected he would. The child had all sorts of defects and was eventually taken away from her. It was a real mess. She was incapable of the responsibilities of marriage. And her spouse was a lazy bum.

Prenuptial agreements are the big topic these days. They imply a level of doubt that invalidates the vows. Such contracts are forbidden to Catholics, but couples sometimes lie to priests.

These are real if extreme cases, but they represent some of the genuine areas where tribunals are “supposed” to judicate.

I have even had guys who were married before who tried to hide their previous bonds! One girl had gotten married by a bogus priest!

Another fellow had a vasectomy and failed to tell the bride. She wanted a big family and found out afterwards that all he wanted was to violate her virginity.

I have seen it all. I am not the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand. And yet, I sympathize with you and share your concern about laxity in the annulment system.

I have never met the current Pope myself and so I am the last one to ask in getting you an audience with him. However, he is no fool, and I think he is aware of the abuses that are happening. Much is going on behind the scenes to improve things, but I suspect it will move too slowly to assist you. I am sorry for the pain you feel. I do not know about any “blood thirst for vengeance” and do not know the particulars in the case your wife brought against you. However, I can promise you my prayers and personal good will.

Yes, I suppose you could say that I am a “nobody among priests,” but every priest can forgive sins and confect the Eucharist, and so in this light I always feel especially privileged and blessed.

I beg you not to reject the compassion, spiritual direction and formation that the Church and good priests have to offer. You may not want kind words, but I suspect that Jesus would want me to extend them to you, all the same. As for direction, I must encourage you to stay close to the Church and to Jesus. Our Lord’s sacred heart knew what it meant to be betrayed and abandoned. Find solidarity with him in prayer and hope to enrich and live your life. We really have little or no control over what other people do. We do have some say about what we, individually, do. We all have crosses of some sort or another. Join yours to Christ’s. Life is not fair. People we want to respect disappoint us. The “happy ever after” ending of fairytales often does not materialize…at least not in this world.

It is right to want “accountability” among our priests and bishops, but as the Scriptures tell us, “vengeance” belongs to the Lord. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that great Tribunal before which we will all one day stand.

People argue for the censure of excommunication these days as if its imposition would cure everything. It does not restore a person to a state of grace. Indeed, it often hardens hearts and people walk away from the faith entirely. It does the opposite from what we might expect. The person is cut off from the Church, the sacrament of salvation. What we should not forget is that which is most basic in regard to rebellion, and that is plain old mortal sin. It does not have to be imposed; the person incurs it immediately and directly by enmity with God and the violation of his commandments. Clergy and other Church officials who do not take their responsibilities seriously, or who are hypocritical, will be punished by God. People who “knowingly” commit adultery will be punished as well. St. Paul says that adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals will have no part in the kingdom of God. It does not get more serious than that. Please do not forget, that while righteous indignation is permissible, violent anger and seeking revenge are also serious sins. Jesus gave us a response pattern; he forgave his murderers from the Cross.

Catholics not married in the Church are not truly married. You write, Karl, that your wife and her “new husband” are “…functioning as a married couple, while usually deceiving all by saying the arrangements are ‘brother and sister.’” There is a peculiar arrangement permitted by the Church where pastors can allow a couple not married in the Church to feign such a situation in the attempt to avoid scandal. It is called INTERNAL FORUM. However, the couple has to be elderly and the annulment has to be impossible to receive. They are forbidden to publicize the true nature of their relationship and they are forbidden to have any sexual congress. They must live as brother and sister. Is this what happened? [Rome and certain canonists, I learned recently, have become much more strict and hesitant to tolerate internal forum situations.]

The trouble here is that the companionship and affection owed to the lawful spouse is still withheld (or given the wrong party).

Almost everyone in my last parish was elderly. It was a small place. Over the years, however, I have spoken about the sacrament of marriage and the evil of divorce. A number of my priest friends have done the same. I am not sure this necessarily brings one into opposition with the Pope and every bishop, either. Archbishop Wuerl has said wonderful things about the indissolubility of marriage in his catechism and television program.

Let us avoid vulgarity. Dialogue must be respectful. I am a priest and I belong to the Church. The question is not whether I will stand with you, Karl, but whether or not we will both stand with Jesus.

You do not want to hear pious talk, but honestly, there are some wounds that cannot be healed in this world. Life is messy and we struggle in a society of sinners with too few saints. All God is asking of you and me is that we be faithful. We may never know success, but that is okay, as long as there is fidelity.

“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Peace,
Father Joe

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Catholic, Divorce, Eucharist, Marriage, Morality, Sacraments, Sexuality | 12 Comments »

Marriage, Divorce & Condoms

Posted on August 27, 2010 by Father Joe

Boy is she a cutie…NOT! Hey, I am a celibate priest, and most days that seems pretty good by me. Yes, it would be nice to have someone bring me soup when sick, and my slippers, and cook, and clean, and do the laundry and…well, as my dear mother used to say, “I am sure glad you are a priest, no woman in her right mind would have you!” Probably true, but house-keepers are soooo expensive!

Years ago I posted a Catholic Sex Morality Test on my old Blog. However, the quiz site deletes the quizzes after a certain period of time. Rather than make up a new test, I thought I would share my thoughts about the few questions that those answering often got wrong. Remember I am prudish, but I try to teach ONLY what the Church actually teaches.

One of the questions on the quiz was, “Marooned alone together on a desert island, can a Catholic man and woman marry?” The answer was, “Yes, they can pledge their vows before God privately.”

The laws of the Church regarding canonical form (requiring the presence of a priest and two witnesses) is only required if it is humanly possible. A couple on a desert island, cut off from the rest of the world, can still make their vows before God and if later rescued would be considered as husband and wife by the Church. If so desired, the ceremonials associated with the exchange of vows could be provided with a Mass at that time. Remember, the couple marry themselves. The priest witnesses it for the Church.

Another question was, “How does the Catholic Church judge divorce?” The answer was, “Sometimes tolerated, divorce is technically a sin.”

Actually, divorce is tolerated, especially in cases of abuse or where the true character of the marriage is in doubt. An annulment cannot be acquired in the United States unless there is a prior divorce. However, divorce of a true marriage is forbidden by Jesus and those guilty of breaking up a true marriage commit sin. I know this is a hard teaching for some and for that reason the Church struggles in maintaining this truth while showing pastoral consideration and compassion to persons.

A question that surprised many respondents was, “Can a condom be used to prevent spreading HIV to an uninfected spouse?” The correct answer was, “No, condom use is always intrinsically evil.”

Okay, upon this one I will grant some confusion because of news stories about a possible change in Church teaching; however, I do not consider dissenting theologians and liberal bishops to be credible authorities. There was some speculation recently that the Church might permit condom use in cases where a spouse was HIV positive and the other was uninfected. Even many conservative thinkers thought that it might be permitted if the couple were elderly or infertile. Obviously, there would be no contraceptive intent. However, given the papal teachings we do have, the danger of watering down Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, and the consensus of magisterial theologians like the late Msgr. Smith of Dunwoodie and Dr. William May now retired of the JPII Marriage Institute, it is my conviction that the current teaching of the Church will not be modified. Condom use is always intrinsically evil. There is no fecundity with condom use. It feigns the marital act but is objectively something else.

I always speak honestly about what I believe…and I only hold what the Church claims as true. When and if the Church corrects me, I will always be a faithful and obedient son.

Filed under: Adultery, Catholic, Contraception, Divorce, Marriage, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Questions & Answers About Marriage

Posted on August 18, 2010 by Father Joe

Does the Bible say that Christian marriage is a sacrament and more than a mere civil contract?

Yes, and we find the evidence from the mouth of Christ. The Lord tells us: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6). St. Paul adds: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . This mystery is a profound one [great sacrament], and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:25,32).

What is the special grace that comes to a couple in marriage?

They are given the divine grace to join their hearts into a more intimate, more lasting, and more holy love. They are enabled to raise their children in reverence or holy fear and love of God.

Does the Bible actually say that married people should not remarry while their spouse is alive?

Jesus made it quite clear: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh . . . So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:5-6).

Does the Bible forbid divorce?

Yes, although many churches, which profess Christ, have permitted it on their own authority. It is evidence that the Catholic Church is the true biblical Church and the one steadfast in Christ and his truths. Difficult teachings are not eliminated or ignored simply because they are difficult or out of fashion. A proper reading of Matthew 19:6-9 shows Christ’s mind on the subject: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Then they ask Jesus, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Our Lord responded: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [unlawful or lewd conduct, actually incest], and marries another, commits adultery.” Again, St. Paul adds upon the subject: “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). “Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Romans 7:2-3). Obviously the rights of the husband and the wife are here the same and the law holds for the husband, too.

Does the Catholic Church grant divorces?

No, although there is an annulment process which many Catholics pursue after a civil divorce. If it is determined that there was a serious impediment to a true marriage in the first instance, a marital union might be declared annulled. However, if the marriage were true, it is indissoluble. If the first marriage is a valid sacrament, it can only end at the death of one of the spouses.

Why does the Church forbid marriages among close relatives?

The prohibition in Matthew’s Gospel is certainly part of the answer. Besides violating the natural order, such bonds often prove wanting and the offspring deficient in mental and bodily development.

Why is there the custom of publishing banns?

Often made optional today, or dispensed by lawful authority, banns were published as a public announcement. Not only did this notify a parish community, but it also prevented perilous elopements, and invited general information about their freedom to marry. After such a publication, one would quickly discover if there were a prior promise from either of the parties to marry someone else of if there were a serious impediment to marriage.

What are the duties of husband and wife?

They are to live together in peace, love and fidelity. They are to raise their children as good Christians, sharing each other’s joys and sorrows.

How is this sacramental covenant enacted?

Taking each other’s right hand, they render their vows or consent before the priest or deacon. The priest blesses them and confirms their union. The priest witnesses marriages. Couples, themselves, are the actual ministers of the sacrament. The rings are blessed by the priest and they place them on each other’s fingers with the appropriate prayer. A Nuptial Blessing comes at the end of the service. If it takes place during Mass, and they are both Catholic, they will also receive Holy Communion. The marriage is fully consummated when they go home and share the marital act.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Questions, Sacraments, Sexuality | 18 Comments »

Stoned to Death for Adultery

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Father Joe

Today’s news included the story about a stoning of an adulterous couple, 20 year old Sadiqa and her lover 28 year old Qayum. Qayum had left his wife for her and the two were caught at a friend’s house by the Taliban. This past Sunday, before a crowd of 150 men, they were stoned to death in the Kunduz providence of northern Afghanistan. Before the fall of Taliban rule such stonings were common. Such brutality shocks us but it speaks volumes about the mentality of the enemy and their brutal religious beliefs. (Take note, we are are told that such is a distortion of Islam.)

Despite dark moments in history, by contrast, right-minded Christians would censure wrongdoing but pay heed to the witness of our Lord.

Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.” (John 8:2-11)

Our nation seems to have moved to the opposite extreme, excusing all sorts of sexual depravity and the violation of the marriage bond. Adultery, fornication and sodomy were once universally regarded as crimes. Half of the 50 states of the U.S. still regard adultery as a criminal offense. Not in your state? Last I heard it was illegal in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. However, along with the other immoral acts, it is rarely prosecuted. Adultery is still a violation of the military code of conduct and can earn a court martial.

Adultery was defined in some states as actual sexual congress and in others, like Virginia, as “lewd” or “lascivious” associations. I recall a few years ago the authorities used a fornication charge to get a court order to raid a house of a suspected drug pusher— sneaky! Possible penalties for adultery are as severe as a life sentence (Michigan), two years imprisonment (Pennsylvania) or in my own state of Maryland, a $10 fine. Given the money problems in the state, I am surprised the fine is not raised and the law enforced. Just as with the speed and red light cameras which catch offenders for hefty fines, could we not place discrete anti-smooching cameras in parks, near pools, at bars and maybe even in bedrooms? Charging per each offense, I would suspect given the lifestyle and lack of commitment today, the money would come flooding in! [I hope you guys know that I am kidding.]

How far must we go to insure public morality? Who determines today what is right and wrong?

What are your thoughts about all this?

Filed under: Adultery, Islam, Politics, Sexuality, Sin | 13 Comments »

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS VIOLATES ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Posted on July 13, 2010 by Father Joe

Dr. Kenneth Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois, Champaign, who taught classes on the Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, was fired for teaching and explaining in an email to students the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. While the Catholic position is based upon the clear Scriptural prohibition, the meat or substance for our position is a reasoned stand applying Natural Law.

The universal catechism is very clear:

[CCC 2357] Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The context of the current controversy was an upcoming test on the theory of utilitarianism. He contrasted it with the Catholic appreciation of natural law. Apparently, the university wanted him either to be silent regarding such Catholic teachings or to encourage dissent. Because he honestly taught what he was charged to teach, he was terminated. A friend of the student complained that the explanation he gave amounted to “hate speech.” This is precisely the kind of repercussion that we were told by liberals would not happen when legislation redefined such speech. Professor Howell has also suffered the loss of his position at the campus Catholic center. I suspect that the school will now seek out lapsed and/or bad Catholics to replace him. No “good” Catholic would take such a position since that school has unveiled its blatant anti-Catholic bias.

The professor wrote:

In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.
Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.
Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.
One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted.
I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.
Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.
Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.
I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions.

To read the complete email, go to: THE GAZETTE

This honest and good teacher taught for nine years at the University of Illinois. He told his students that they would be tested on their understanding of Catholic teaching, not judged upon their personal acceptance or beliefs.

The setting for the controversy was one of his lectures in the Introduction to Catholicism course. He wrote an email in May to his students in preparation for an exam regarding the application of natural law theory to a practical social issue, i.e. like judging the morality of homosexual acts. Despite acknowledging that many might disagree with Catholic doctrine, and the notion of natural law (like Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan), the good professor gave an accurate application to a pertinent issue from Catholic social teaching. Nevertheless, the school insisted that the teachings and email violated their standards of inclusivity.

Today, certain concerned administrators of the school have asked that the faculty committee determine whether or not academic freedom was violated. I suspect for many of us, even those unsympathetic to such views, would regard this as a no brainer. It seems obvious that a pro-homosexual litmus test usurped such freedom and an accurate, if offensive to some, Catholic teaching. Would he have also been fired for the application of natural law to the abortion question? Liberals hated Justice Clarence Thomas for his paper in such an application, drawing an analogy with the question of slavery and the violation of the innate dignity of human personhood.

It amazes me that a facility dedicated to open education could be so closed-minded. What are they saying to their students?

Truths are relative, unless they are liberal truths.

Judge no one but we can judge you.

All ideas are welcome, except those which are not politically correct.

Exercise your faith, unless you are a conservative Christian or Roman Catholic.

This professor was hired to teach Catholic thought. This university has not only wronged this man but sends the bigoted message that Catholic thinking is unacceptable on their campus. Perversion (my word, not that of the sensitive and gentle professor) is tolerated but no insinuation that such actions might be judged morally wrong. I suspect that this speaks ill both for the religious studies and the philosophy departments. If religious tenets and philosophical/ethical questions cannot be freely addressed, then any insistence of academic freedom becomes a hypocritical sham. Discussions about homosexuality, fornication, and abortion would be limited to the left or made taboo. The teacher gave a forthright answer. The students could have argued and disagreed with it. Instead, the professor was silenced. He attacked no one. He merely gave the Catholic position on a question of conduct.

Faithful Catholic students should complain that they are not really welcome to be fully engaged in the life of the school. Parents should consider sending their children elsewhere. I know one Catholic university which hired a renowned atheist philosophy instructor. The students and other faculty members often delighted in debating with him. They respected each other. But here is a case where a believer is punished precisely because he teaches views which non-believers or secular students will not tolerate. It is ironic that those who are the most fanatical about toleration are so often incredibly intolerant.

Dr. Kenneth Howell is an award winning educator (recognized by the university in 2009) and a convert to the Catholic faith. He has taught there for nine years. The word is out that even the local bishop is requesting his reinstatement. The professor was very careful to admit that he was a faithful practicing Catholic and thus he was sympathetic to the subject matter he was hired to teach. He slandered no one and even admitted that a critical eye to certain actions should not be interpreted as condemnation or hatred against others. Rather than a professional and academic debate, anonymous students and “politically correct” co-workers decided they would simply get rid of him. It reminds me of the spoiled child who takes his ball and runs home when he starts to lose in a game.

We are told that the university president, Michael Hogan, has received over 100 emails. Now he has asked that the matter be reviewed. Maybe more of us should say something about this as well?

UI President
uipres@uillinois.edu
http://www.uillinois.edu/president/

Executive Offices
http://www.uillinois.edu/administration/vps.cfm

Trustees
http://www.uillinois.edu/trustees/

Ethics Office
http://www.ethics.uillinois.edu/policies/index.cfm

My suggestion is that the professor be rehired or that the public school make it very clear that Catholic teachings are neither welcome in the classroom nor in regular discourse. If they do the latter, they should also forfeit tax dollars and public support. They can hang a sign on their doors, saying, “Catholics are only welcome if they shut up and compromise their faith and values!”

Further, if he is reinstated, I would recommend that those administrators, faculty members and students who violated his academic and personal rights face, themselves, some sort of disciplinary censure. They violated this man’s academic freedom, religious freedom and freedom of speech. Where he was open to rational discourse, they were not. He gave a coherent presentation of the subject matter he was charged to teach, Catholicism, without any foul language or attacks upon persons. Those who fired him were not so noble or magnanimous.

Is it not interesting that a liberal atheist professor at another university faced no reprimand when he urge the theft and desecration of the Eucharist while mockingly name-calling Christians and Catholics? However, when a Catholic professor who stresses respect for persons and freedom for intellectual inquiry, shares ideas which are found offensive by a radical minority over-sensitive about homosexual rights, he is quickly terminated.

Finally, I would urge other Catholic professors, students and those sensitive to matters of academic freedom, to take Dr. Howell’s email and to sign it themselves. At present, he is a man who stands largely alone. He did nothing wrong. This could be done online and with hard copies sent to the university. This should not be anonymous. That is the route of cowards, like the one who started this mess for the good professor. We should stand up and be counted.

We love our homosexual brothers and lesbian sisters.

However, Catholic teaching rightly stipulates that homosexual acts are disordered and a violation of our nature.

In any case, even if you disagree with Catholic teaching, given the public setting and the classes he was hired to teach, those who favor academic freedom should also support him.

DISCUSSION ON THIS POST

John

I heard about this on the radio the other day and could not believe it. Liberals are all about freedom of speech until you say something that they disagree with, and then they try to shut you down. Didn’t a professor out in CA teach a class on female masturbation with a [deleted]? I’m sure this was okay because of her freedom of speech. Simply amazing!

Ron D

I wrote the good UI President a three-letter email, “cut the crap.” Here is his reply, and mine:

Let me begin by thanking you for expressing your concerns. Academic freedom is at the core of our teaching and research missions. It’s vital to our ability to explore new ideas, educate our students, and promote the civil and free exchange of alternative viewpoints in a democracy.

I learned of this action on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) campus late last week and immediately asked Chancellor Robert Easter, who oversees the campus, to provide me with a briefing on the matter. I want to assure you that the University administration shares my commitment to the principles of academic freedom. At the same time, we do believe it’s important to fully investigate all of the details related to this situation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it is sometimes the case that public reports may convey only part of the story. I think it important to reserve judgment until I have all of the facts and I hope you’ll agree.

We have asked the UIUC Senate’s standing Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to immediately review this action. This is the mechanism on the campus through which these matters should be vetted. We expect this review to be completed very soon. By using our channels of shared governance and review, we are in the best position to make informed decisions that afford a fair process for all.
Again, I’m grateful to have heard from you and others about this and I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond. It reaffirms the deep commitment that so many have to the University and public higher education and to ensuring that the University of Illinois continues to be a beacon of excellence, as it should be for the state, the nation, and the world.

Sincerely,
Mike

Michael J. Hogan
President
University of Illinois

Just remember what he’s teaching. CATHOLIC studies. He cannot lie about the position of the Church, that wouldn’t be education. Many Catholics will be following this. I hope you come to the proper conclusion.

WI Catholic

This is why I have missed you!! God bless you abundantly!

Aidan H

Oh my goodness, you are back!

I thought you were dead!

And look, you raise your puffy fat head out of the grave fighting!

What is with you anyway? You must really hate gay people! You attack them and their rights every chance you get!

This screwy professor had to be fired. Like you he was a hate-monger. The university was crazy to allow Catholic nonsense to be taught at a state school anyway! It is a violation of church and state! If religion has to be taught, it should pass a litmus test. Groups and cults which encourage racism, sexism, and discrimination because of sexual orientation have no place in the public forum. They should be ostracized and stamped out.

If I had my way I would force the Catholic church to ordain women and active homosexuals. Guys who like other men and women would not be chasing little boys!

Did the professor explain how Catholicism can excuse and promote child abuse and the protection of molesters? I doubt it, but gay men who love each other are always fair game… NOT!

The natural law is bunk. We control our destinies and make what we want out of life. If same-sex love was unnatural then people would not have such attractions. But there are homosexual people and animals. It does not result in children but not all heterosexual relationships do so either.

If you ask me, celibacy is far more questionable than homosexuality. Is it even possible to go through life without the intimacy of another person and his or her body? It is no wonder these priests go bonkers and start chasing kiddies. They are sick men and this professor was an apologist for their sickness!

I for one am telling the university, “Bravo!” It was about time and I hope more such homophobic bigots are shown the door in the near future.

Father J, you are the most hateful and hypocritical priest I know. Just when I thought we would be spared your spewing lies, you jump back on the scene. I for one hope that your heart is racing. How’s the blood pressure? You can pop a vein but I bet you never [deleted]!

Now, here again is my dare. Show my comment or prove you are a coward and fake! You can give it, but by your own admission, you just can’t take it! I hope I am too much for you and that you will go away for good!

Why can’t you be like most priests, lazy fools who keep their mouths closed? Mind your own business and leave the rest of us alone.

Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!

Father Joe

Aidan, some comments are so radical that they are their own rebuttal.

Arguing with you will probably be pointless.

I will keep you in prayer, instead.

John

Father Joe, I was thinking the same thing while reading Aidan’s remarks: no sense in even responding to this. My blood pressure did start rising as I read, but by the time I was finished, I actually felt sad for this person. It sounds like he may be a little bigoted himself. You are right, we can only pray for them.

Kind words, your comment Father Joe, indeed kind words.

Jeff

Father Joe,

Just a quick word of encouragement for you, as a convert to Catholicism in 1987 (from a completely non-religious upbringing, btw), I admire reasoned thought in the defense of the Catholic Church’s teachings. God gave humans the ability to not only love, but also to reason and self-analyze. I believe that is strongest foundation by which we can stand firm in our faith and in our public defense of it.
Keep up the good work!

Lady Godless

Father Joe said: “Is it not interesting that a liberal atheist professor at another university faced no reprimand when he urge the theft and desecration of the Eucharist while mockingly name-calling Christians and Catholics? However, when a Catholic professor who stresses respect for persons and freedom for intellectual inquiry, shares ideas which are found offensive by a radical minority over-sensitive about homosexual rights, he is quickly terminated.”

Are you referring to PZ Myers?

I believe that was about something that happened a couple of years ago. What did you advocate in that case?

Father Joe

I do think there are extremes which would force censure upon professors: inappropriate relationships with students, incompetence, belligerence and seeking to harm the institution for which one is employed, treating students unfairly or unjustly (as in biased grading and verbal abuse), constant foul and derogatory language, encouraging students to violence, a disregard for the civil laws and enticing students to violate them, etc.

Myers ridiculed believers and lacked basic human respect. I would expect all teachers to exhibit a certain tolerance and courtesy to others, even when they do not share their opinions or views. Further, he was hired to teach science; Howell was specifically hired to teach about Roman Catholicism.

Howell might be critical of atheism, other religious beliefs, and the brand of morality practiced by others; however, he seemed honest and approached such issues within the scope of his course, respect for his students and intellectual honesty. A science teacher may or may not believe in God, and he might even share his intellectual reasoning for such views; however, name-calling and deliberate blasphemy crosses the line (in my estimation). It is like using the “n” word to blacks and the “f” word to homosexuals. Polite or decent people should not devalue others, even when there are serious disagreements, either from prejudice or from a given perspective of the created order.

Lady Godless

Looks like Ken Howell has been temporarily reinstated, pending full review:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-29/news/ct-met-u-of-i-catholic-professor-073020100729_1_reinstates-academic-freedom-associate-professor

Michele Johnson

I just discovered your blog, Father Joe. I find the discussions here fascinating but I can understand why you would need to limit your postings. The hatred in some of these comments is quite toxic.

What brought me to your blog was a search on how Catholics should react to Islam….which lead me to your article on Pope John Paul II kissing the Koran several years ago. Again, fascinating discussions and hoping I find some answers there.

I’ve recently been invited to attend a meeting to discuss a program for school children in our area. The program is “Operation Cooperation” and strives to bring understanding and cooperation among children of different faiths: Judaism, Catholicism, Islam and Christian Scientist.

I am praying for wisdom in this matter. I look forward to following your blog in the future.

May the Lord bless and keep you

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Sexuality, Social Justice | Leave a comment »

Same-Sex Marriage or Adoption Services

Posted on February 18, 2010 by Father Joe

The Archdiocese of Washington has been forced to follow the path of Boston in terminating (or in this case transferring) its foster care and adoption services. I have dear friends who received their boy and girl through Catholic Charities. It was always an impetus of the Church to insure that the children went to good, wholesome and loving homes of faith. The District of Columbia City Council refused to refer the matter to a public referendum and denied religious exemptions to the new same-sex marriage law. Gay advocates will no doubt argue that the Church is abandoning the poor. The truth is that the Church was forced out of a valuable service to children and potential parents by the city government. Our services and personnel are being handed over to the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) which has roots in the Baptist Church. How is it that they can do what we cannot? Does this mean that children for whom we formerly cared are now vulnerable to adoption by homosexuals?

Here is a portion of the press release from the Archdiocese:

Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington transitioned its foster care and public adoption program in the District of Columbia to the National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) on February 1, 2010. Catholic Charities remains committed to continuing to serve the vulnerable of the District of Columbia through the 82 programs the agency operates in the region.

Although Catholic Charities has an 80-year legacy of high quality service to the vulnerable in our nation’s capital, the D.C. Government informed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve as a foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same sex marriage law.

This is the only program Catholic Charities anticipates will be impacted by the law.

The Archdiocese had a choice to make, collaborate with sin or remain steadfast behind the moral teachings of the Catholic faith. It is a sad day. Our adoption services was a wonderful complement to our pro-life efforts. It demonstrated that we were both about saving the child in the womb and about helping children already born and potential parents to find each other. Where there was once a partnership between the City and the Church; the City government has now chosen to create an adversarial relationship.

Filed under: Archdiocese, Morality, Politics, Sexuality, Sin | 3 Comments »

Catholic Church Under Attack in U.S.

Posted on March 8, 2009 by Father Joe

Do we see here the latest faces of evil? While a certain anti-Catholicism has long been fashionable in the U.S., these bigots pull no punches in attacking the divinely instituted hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church: Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald of Connecticut. Why? It is because these gay men hate the Church for her position against same-sex civil unions. More about this below.

DIOCESE OF BRIDGEPORT VERSUS CONNECTICUT LEGISLATORS

Watch the video with Bishop William Lori where he warns of the crisis.

TEXT OF RAISED BILL IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE #1098

A Bill that would strip Bishops of their authority over parishes!

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS ALERT!!!

Catholics must stand together against this attack upon the nature of the Church!

The latest and most intrusive step so far against the Catholic Church is in Connecticut. True Catholics must pray and support the Bishop of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bishop Bill Lori, formerly a priest of my archdiocese, Washington, DC, is headed for the fight of his life. What happens there will have repercussions for the Church throughout the entire nation. Fortunately, he is up to the fight and is also Supreme Chaplain to the KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.

This is not Red China with its puppet “patriotic” Catholic Church; but that is precisely what certain legislators in Connecticut must think. A bill has been put forward that would directly interfere with the internal activities and structure of the Catholic Church. Other churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples are ignored; the Catholic Church alone (at least for now) has been targeted by name. Bill 1098 would strip Catholic bishops of their direct oversight over their parishes. The state would force the bishops to hand their jurisdiction to an elected board of directors. Clergy would not be allowed on this board, only laymen and laywomen. The bishop or his representative could sit with the 7 to 13 members, but he would have NO VOTE.

The overall authority of bishops over their priests and congregations comes from the apostles and the charge given them by Jesus. This legislation rejects the Catholic stance and forces a reformed Protestant form of government upon the Catholic Church. The Church rejected boards of controlling trustees over parishes after the Revolutionary War. Only the Protestant reformers, and not all of them, suggested that the bishops be stripped of their authority. Such a measure would reduce bishops to figureheads, good for periodic Confirmations but nothing more. Pastors would be hired, fired and treated as employees by these boards. Pastors would no longer be true pastors at all. I am sure the Vatican would never have any of it. But what would happen then, a forced schism where the legitimate bishops would govern from exile and their priests minister under tents while the state flunkies took over Church properties and changed policies? Such a view by which the laity rules the Church has been condemned as heretical by the Magisterium. We each have our role to play and the bishops should not be stripped of theirs. How could anyone in government dare think they could rewrite the system of governance for the Catholic Church? This is an obscenity to the freedom of religion!

The diocese of Bridgeport has explained the situation as follows:

“This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded.

This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion.

The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church. We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:

Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.

It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power.

It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights.
It is time for us to defend our Church!”

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is found in what is properly called the “Bill of Rights”. It contains these clear words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This bill violates the rights of the Catholic Church and the faith of her good people. It is also unconstitutional and we can only hope that good sense prevails. But, even if we win this one; what about the next attack or the one after that? The Church has a hierarchical structure that comes down to us from Christ’s institution. This legislation is anti-Catholic bigotry at its best. Note that we alone are singled-out for such treatment. It is to be forced upon us because the Church refuses to be silent about such evils as same-sex unions and abortion. Do not think for one moment that these boards would be composed of good practicing Catholics who kiss the hands of their priest each Sunday. No, these would be the dissenters taking charge.

No doubt the scandal of a few bad priests and allegations of abuse weighs in the background for many people, but the rationale given here is that the bishops and Church cannot manage their own financial house. Bishop Lori rightly finds this reasoning quite fantastic, given their high degree of accountability and good management. By contrast, the State of Connecticut cannot close a one billion dollar deficit and the full story will never be told upon the government waste and corruption. The real reason for this Bill is hatred of the Catholic Church and resentment about the tough moral stands she has taken. It is no accident that the day before it was submitted, the same-sex marriage Bill was to be heard. This Bill which focuses on the juridical structure of the Catholic Church is only a thinly veiled attempt to silence our voice. Note that other churches are not targeted for such take-over. The two main proponents are radically involved with the homosexual agenda and hate the Church for refusing to pander to perversity. There can be no doubt, these men are out to destroy the Catholic Church as we know her.

Imagine for a moment what these boards might quickly put on the agenda if they should take charge:

Their first objective would be achieved: approval of same-sex couples, blessings over them and wedding ceremonies.
Next would come condom and pill distribution from Catholic Charities and training sessions for CCD kids and parish youth groups.
Parish pro-life groups would be disowned and replaced with Planned Parenthood or NARAL promoters.
Married priests would be invited back, especially after orthodox celibates are fired.
In short order, women would be ordained and received as priests in the parishes.
Divorce and remarriage would be permitted.
The Protestant “open” communion table would be established, welcoming everyone for communion, even your Buddhist friends.
ACT-UP and Dignity would operate so-called gay-friendly activities using parish funds and property.

MIKE LAWLOR ATTACKS CATHOLICISM AT GAY MARRIAGE HEARING:

The late Pope John Paul II told the young people at World Youth Day that they had to remain strong in the faith. He prophesied that many of them would face great persecution and maybe even suffer martyrdom. While he worked for a better tomorrow and reconciliation with groups which had historic grievances with Catholicism; nevertheless, when asked about the future he said he had a vision of BLOOD.

Many people assert that here in America we are safe to worship as we please. However, religion is about more than ritual, it is also about ideas and activism. Already there are politicians and organizations who oppose basic ideas and activities which touch core tenets of Catholicism. The question of the war aside, the Bush Administration was a momentary respite, an oasis in a storm that was looming ever closer and closer. Now that Obama is president, I suspect we shall find the ark of Peter frequently assailed and with few earthly friends to lend assistance. Catholics in the pews have grown timid to defend and help. They must be awakened from their moral slumber. As in many nations, certain Catholics have become the Church’s worst enemies. Even here in the United States, many Catholic pro-abortion politicians in the House of Representatives, the Senate and in the Executive branch oppose the Church’s efforts for the Gospel of Life. State governments are also turning against us. Many of these efforts are fueled by the big money that organizations like Planned Parenthood can muster. Add to this the general enmity that the ACLU and other such entities have against us, and well, this fight is going to have casualties.

Pretty much every year there is an effort here in Maryland to force Catholic hospitals to do abortion referrals and to distribute contraception, even if abortifacient. So far we have been on the winning side, but for how much longer? Maryland bishops have said they would close the hospitals before allowing any collaboration in murder and sin. The Church in Los Angeles took heat about their insurance plans for employees and was pressured to add same-sex partners to the mix. There is also growing insistence that artificial contraception be included in health plans, despite the Church’s view that such practices constitute mortal sin. The Church in Boston had to shut down their adoption program operated through Catholic Charities because the authorities insisted that they would also have to adopt children out to homosexual couples. No one thought the Archbishop would take such a step, but he had the courage to make the right move. The new president has made no secret that he opposes any “conscience clause” for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who want nothing to do with abortion, embryonic destruction and artificial contraception. Stripped of legal protection, many pro-life professionals and Catholics will have their licenses stripped and be removed from their jobs.

Discussion About the Topic

REALIST:

You are certifiably crazy, and are scaring people away from the Church. The proposals you have made should this law pass are INSANE. Ridiculous! I’m ashamed you are still a priest. Have some honor and speak about the issues rationally instead of just spewing anti-Obama hatred. More flies with honey…

FATHER JOE:

I would rather be a fool for Christ and have you think I am crazy than to be you on the Judgment Day. I will pray for your immortal soul.

And by the way, I do not hate Obama; I am just upset that his administration is so set on destroying the unborn. Did you hear the news today? He is reversing Bush’s policies on the use of embryos for research. Of course, I doubt you care, except as another proponent for murder and perversion. Yes, I suspect you will be very happy with this administration.

MICHAEL:

Fr. Joe, on the subject of the Church and the government, I wanted to ask a question about the tax exemption status and the Catholic Church. There has been a black minister on You Tube. He has been openly and severely critical of Obama before and after the election. I was unable to find his email address, because I wanted to send a message asking him if his church lost its tax exemption status as a result of his many verbal tirades. According to IRS regulations, tax-exempt organizations are not permitted to engage in partisan politics, including endorsing candidates or political parties or helping a candidate win an election. To me, tax exemption status makes the church political when she should be entirely spiritual. Priests shouldn’t be afraid to mention names before or after an election IF those in question commit to harming society in any way. We can’t continue to allow our government to tell us how to evangelize or to tell us to shut up in the face of wrongdoing. The church is God’s living voice on Earth. I wonder how our Catholic brothers and sisters in other parts of the world deal with this issue?

FATHER JOE:

It is argued that many black churches are in the hip pocket of the Democrat party. There is no denying that candidates and politicians even speak at services and are endorsed from the pulpit. The so-called political RIGHT is castigated as Republican and is often challenged on their political efforts. Catholic churches are frequently threatened and for the most part remain silenced out of fear that tax exemption and other favors might be lost. We are allowed to talk about issues, but not candidates or politicians. Meanwhile, everyone votes for Obama. There seems a disconnect with moral issues and religious liberty.

JIM OF BOWIE:

Father, thank you so much for speaking out on this; we need to wake up the people as to what is going on in Washington and in many state capitals. The Church is under attack and it is only going to get worse. I have only seen this issue covered on yours and Father Z’s blog. Hopefully more blogs, priests and bishops will speak out. Laura Ingraham did a report on her radio show today with Raymond Arroyo. So maybe EWTN will be on top of it. Let us pray for Bishop Lori.

KAY:

As I read about proposed legislation like this, I am inclined to think that it is so bizarre, so un-American, and so bigoted, that it surely would not be taken seriously. However, more and more often in this country, we are seeing just this kind of craziness get voted into law. Maybe it is an insidious movement to propose the bizarre without much hope that it can be passed. But the publicity surrounding the effort causes more and more people to become desensitized and eventually the bizarre and un-American seems perfectly logical and desirable. It is so sad to see this happening to our country. Thank God for prayer as a resource because I think that is our only hope.

DON:

The smoke of Satan is mixed with the roar of lions over at the coliseum. Lent is a good time to pick up your crosses and follow Christ (to the State Capitol) all you Ct voters (only the ones that didn’t vote for the pro-infanticide president please.)

A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:

Unfortunately, those who voted for Obama and the Democratic Party only encourage this sort of behavior. They have been seduced by style over substance.

We can expect more of this stuff. They have unlimited resources. They have the resources of the government. They will do this until we are bled dry and finally give up.

KARL:

This legislation seems to me to be an open and shut hate crime and should be prosecuted as such using the state’s own laws. It would simply take a prosecutor with some chutzpah. It should not be a surprise, however, that the Catholic Church is under such withering attack; she belongs to Christ, even in her sinfulness. Perhaps those who claim Catholicism unworthily will come to their senses or leave it, making who are left more faithful.

A WASHINGTON CATHOLIC:

The attorney who has encouraged this (Tom Galagher) is not only a Knight of Columbus, but is affiliated w/ VOTF. Talk about your 5th Columns!

FATHER JOE:

Tom Gallagher is not only a Knight of Columbus, but also belongs to the Order of Malta and the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher. These guys have taken and run with his ideas, but did he intend to so thoroughly cut the bishop out of the equation?

LADY GODLESS:

I’ve found some info about SB 1098 from the article in the Stamford Advocate… this proposal was previously introduced by a Republican at the behest of a citizen named Tom Gallagher, one of the people who asked McDonald and Lawlor to submit the proposal this time around:

“Democrats have crossed the line between church and state,” GOP Chairman Christopher Healy said.

“But last year a Republican, former Rep. Dolly Powers of Greenwich, pursued similar legislation. Powers said she submitted a proposal on behalf of constituent Tom Gallagher, a driving force behind the bill now pending before the Judiciary Committee.”

“If a constituent has an issue and they bring it to any legislator, that’s part of your job,” Powers said.

McDonald and Lawlor point out that they have submitted this idea for discussion on behalf of a group of their constituents, but they themselves do not necessarily advocate adopting the proposed legislation.

SB 1098 is the result of a real and bitter conflict ‘within’ the Catholic Church, and is not the result of a conflict between the Catholic Church and outsiders:

“Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he scheduled the bill for a public hearing Wednesday because he was asked to do so by southwestern Connecticut Catholics, including members of Darien and Greenwich churches where large sums of money have disappeared.”

“At St. John, the Rev. Michael Jude Fay, who’s serving a three-year prison term, stole $1.4 million from 1999 to 2006 to finance a luxury lifestyle, including a Florida condo, he shared with his gay lover.”

“At St. Michael two years ago, the Rev. Michael Moynihan quit as pastor in a financial scandal. About $2.1 million in parish contributions was taken off the books in two accounts and at least $400,000 was diverted to the priest for his personal use, according to the diocese.”

Connecticut already has corporate law that applies specifically to the Catholic Church, and the current statute has been in place since the 1950s. This is not a new thing. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says that the currently existing law may have constitutional problems itself.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_11874848

MICHAEL:

http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/Fight_1098.shtml

Please keep this in your prayers. Also remember the promise of our Lord to St. Peter that the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against His Church.

Make no mistake about it. It’s not going to happen in Bridgeport or in any other diocese anywhere in the world. History has proven this true time and time again within the last two thousand years. Every attempt has always ended in failure. The Roman Empire tried repeatedly to destroy the Catholic Church and failed miserably each and every time. This time will be NO DIFFERENT.

GHOST:

McDonald says he introduced the bill at the request of members of St. John Church on the Post Road in Darien because their former pastor, Rev. Michael Jude Fay, stole over a period of years as much as $1.4 million from funds donated by parishioners. Rev. Fay was convicted in 2007. He used the money to fund a life of luxury with his boyfriend. He rented limousines for himself and his mother (totaling $130,000 in costs) but also drove a Jaguar, stayed at elegant hotels (like the Ritz Carlton, Hotel de Paris and Four Seasons), bought expensive jewelry (from Cartier) and imported Italian clothing. He also had membership at a sports club and shopped at Bergdorf Goodman, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on home furnishings and meals. More than $20,000 was spent to mark his 25th anniversary of ordination. The robber priest even spent the money on a Florida condo where he would hang out with his boyfriend. Diocesan auditors discovered the scandal. Half the money was hidden in a secret bank account. In Greenwich, another priest, Rev. Michael Moynihan, resigned in January after an initial audit uncovered a half million dollars in church spending for which he could not account. It is not anti-Catholic to want parish money to be applied to the proper ends for which it is donated. However, the remedy is not to strip the bishops and pastors of their juridical standing and responsibilities.

Both Tom Galagher and Fr. Paul Lakeland, S.J. are progressives and arguably dissenters from accepted Catholic ecclesiology. It makes no difference that Galagher is a Knight, former parish trustee and missionary. As for Rev. Lakeland, our suffering Church knows many rebel priests, oops, excuse me, he is an ex-priest who broke his vows to get married. Lakeland is a defender of the theologian Roger Haight whose Christology was condemned by the Holy See and who has his credentials to teach as a Catholic theologian removed. He would promote religious indifferentism and minimize the unique redemptive work of Christ for all humanity. Height would strip Christ of his authority and Lakeland would do something similar for the Catholic Church. Lakeland espouses both women priests and a Church operated by the laity (see his books, CATHOLICISM AT THE CROSSROADS and THE LIBERATION OF THE LAITY). The beans are spilt about Galagher over at TOPIX COMMENTS. No Spin Personality writes: “Let it be known that as a member of St. Mary Parish, Greenwich, Mr. Gallagher did not ‘step down as a Trustee in 1999’ he was terminated by the pastor. Secondly, let it be known the ‘difference of opinion’ was with the junior priest with the pastor as a witness where Mr. Gallagher provoked the priest with insults at a meeting. It is quite doubtful when Mr. Gallagher states that the encounter with the priest was an ‘incredibly rewarding experience that inspired his current efforts at Church reform’. Please know that Mr. Gallagher has been after Church reform long before that incident and is divisive at all levels of the church’s business and undoubtedly is anti-clerical most likely with an unconscious desire to be a priest himself and eventually become the Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport.”

Both Galagher and Lakeland are members of VOTF, an organization that often finds itself at odds with the Church and has a perspective on Church structure and the priesthood which conflicts with the Magisterium, particularly with the view of Pope Benedict XVI. What revisionists are not admitting publicly is that Church finances and administration often reflect the Church’s doctrinal views and moral positions. The person who controls the purse strings ultimately controls the whole show.

MICHAEL: (March 11, 2009)

It was pulled, glory be to God!

http://cloudoffire.blogspot.com/

LADY GODLESS:

Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you.

The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism.

In other words, all those Democrats, Protestants, liberals, secularists, and gays that many people automatically started fulminating against are ~not~ the force behind this proposal.

Nor does SB 1098 indicate that blood is in the offing, or that anyone is out to martyr you, or that you will now be pressured to display portraits of Jesus that resemble President Obama instead of the currently preferred likeness of Kenny Loggins. What SB 1098 does indicate is that parishioners in certain Connecticut parishes feel that they’ve been cheated, and that they want redress.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/ci_11882379

MARY O:

Lady Godless said, “Tom Gallagher is a registered Republican. He’s one of you. The impetus for SB 1098 comes from within Catholicism. ”

I am NOT a Republican and right now I am ashamed to admit that both Gallagher and I are attorneys. Maybe though, he was sick the day they studied the First Amendment in first year law school Constitutional Law class. Gallagher may believe himself to be a devout Catholic, but if so, his knowledge of Catholicism is even more deficient than his knowledge of Constitutional Law.

I am outraged that because he cannot convince the Church that his way is “the Way,” Gallagher apparently decided to ask Big Brother to step in and remake the Church so that it would be more to the liking of Gallagher and his ilk.

Are we not to be concerned because this is just a “tiny” infringement of the First Amendment? Perhaps we should just chill until the government decides that the First Amendment needs to be done away with as not “progressive” enough.

As for Gallagher, “confession is good for the soul.”

NEED ANI PHONE:

Here is why we should be pro-choice: It is only for women that pregnancy may represent a health risk. It is only women’s career, which is put on hold, that pregnancy and the ensuing maternity leave affect. There are important questions to be debated, such as whether a pregnant woman in a significantly bad health condition should carry the unwanted pregnancy to term, or whether only healthy women in their child-bearing prime should anti-abortion legislation be targeted at.

FATHER JOE:

Pregnancy might be a health risk, but it is not unnatural or a disease. It is the perfectly natural result of having sexual intercourse.

The business about careers is false. I know men who changed their goals and took the jobs that immediately paid the bills for their children.

A woman might be ill, but if every sick mother killed her children to preserve her mental and physical health, we would not only have a lot of abortions but drowned and shot children as well.

If a healthy woman in her prime does not want her children, then give them up for adoption. I have a list of parents who would take them with no hesitation.

The bottom line has not changed. You can only say what you do because you do not believe the unborn child is a human being. Only fiendish monsters would argue that it is okay to murder children.

But wait a minute, maybe I am wrong about what you believe? After all, President Obama believes that living babies can be allowed to die from exposure and neglect after surviving an abortion… hum?

ANON:

With the exception of rape, the woman puts herself in the position of creating the “unwanted pregnancy.”

It is simply selfishness that is operative here.

Don’t make the false argument that “anti-abortion” legislation “targets” women. Face the truth that abortion is an excuse for selfish sexual gratification for women and IT TARGETS innocent children.

The important question that needs debate is whether you can keep that dime between your knees, sister and your partner in sexual satisfaction can have enough other interests to keep his mind off his own private parts and yours, as well.

Don’t blame the child, whom you created, for your lust.

I guess your precious job is more important than the job of the Catholic or other life-affirming person who will lose theirs because you had to have your abortifacients and they will not supply you with it!

You are no different, or less responsible, than the American with powdered nares whose demand for cocaine, to GET THEM OFF, provides the REASON for the drug cartel hit man to kill another border patrol agent, who gets in THEIR way of protecting THEIR “JOB”!

You are not PRO-CHOICE. You are a selfish brat who never learned self-control or the efficacy of placing the NEEDS of another over your WANTS!

LADY GODLESS:

Huh? Who are you talking to?

BOB:

I believe that “Anon” needs to DRASTICALLY cut back on the coffee!

ANON:

I have six children. The first child I had was the result of a relationship I had in college, before I was married. My plans were definitely put on hold. At that time in my life, I was encouraged by many to consider my “options.” After he was born, the measure of guilt I felt of actually considering those options effectively made me ill, and what is normally 3 day hospital stay for women who have given birth turned into a five day stay for me.

Once a child is created, there is no “choice” any longer, and those who believe that and act on it are in for true heartache.

Additionally, when I was pregnant with my 5th child, I was very ill. I had a condition which required surgery, which my doctors wanted to perform in my first trimester. My OB warned me about the potential harm to the baby and told me there was a very real possibility that the procedure could induce a miscarriage. Again, I was counseled by many to consider my “options.” If I knowingly did something that could produce a miscarriage, to me, that was a clean way of saying I might be choosing abortion. The 2nd trimester was safer for the baby, and though my plans were, again, interrupted by staying in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, I have an amazingly beautiful daughter who is healthy and well (and so am I).

God gives us children as a blessing- NOT A CURSE! As with everything else in life, sometimes those unexpected blessings require us to pick up our cross.

Abortion touches a chord with me, although I see the Church as paying more attention to abortion than it should, when more of its efforts should be towards marriages. Nevertheless, the post was directed towards NEED ANI PHONE who is typical of those who think of themselves first, their irresponsibility for creating the pregnancy, except in rape(which is STILL a wrong that cannot be answered with another (worse) wrong being pushed upon those who they DEMAND, join them in their crimes.

Her position and the defense of abortion is absurd. She should keep that dime between her legs and have the guy arrested and prosecuted who forces himself on her. Good riddance to him. To call him a pig would insult our hammy friends.

LADY DEE:

I am so grateful that such information is brought to the attention of the masses – good on you Father Joe! They say that what happens in America usually repeats itself in the United Kingdom up to 10 years later. Forewarned is forearmed! I truly believe that there are invidious persons buried deep inside our institutions – both religious and other – whose purpose is to take down anything which bands people together.

Why can’t Mr. Galagher, if he is so disaffected, count his true support by setting up his own group and fighting fairly and openly instead of using such poor fools as those named (McDonald and ?).

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Catholic, Homosexuality, Politics, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 4 Comments »