Sexuality | Blogger Priest

Question 7 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 23, 2013 by Father Joe

7. The Openness of the Married Couple to Life

a) What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?

When was the last time the average Catholic heard a homily on Humanae vitae? We had a Dominican priest speak about it here at Holy Family Parish a few years ago and I got a letter of complaint and another one went to the Archdiocese. The dissenters count on silence and threaten to hold back financial support otherwise. Many priests also dissent (although they are an aging group) and one told me to my face that he assured penitents that taking the pill was responsible parenthood and not a sin. I chastised him in private and when he refused to change his errant ways I reported him to the Archdiocese. What happened? Nothing, he remained in place with a good size parish and school until he died a year ago. All most people know about the teaching is what the news media and biased family and friends tell them. Kids often stop taking catechesis in eighth grade and the more complicated topics like birth control are not age appropriate. Do our marriage preparation efforts bring it up? Humanae vitae requires a basic shared appreciation of Christian anthropology: the nature and purpose of the conjugal act, a respect for the dignity of persons, acknowledgment for the design of the Creator and his providence, and the inseparability of union and an openness to procreation. A general shallowness makes it difficult or impossible for many people to comprehend the Church’s argument. While fidelity was once procured because of a profound sense of duty and obedience; such comes across today as arbitrary and overly complicated. We cannot blindly trust in a deontology toward authority when Church leadership has been compromised and maligned. High school and young adult catechesis has to be broadened and made attractive. There is just no way to communicate a cohesive understanding of human personhood and values to children and disinterested adolescents. A grade-school catechesis does not prepare Catholic adults for responding as people of faith in the modern world.

b) Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?

Do we even have to ask this question? The teaching is broadly rejected. Contraception is the easy way out and now with the HHS Mandate, it is free. Ours society takes pills for everything. We are conditioned to be pill takers. NFP would demand a degree of responsibility and abstinence that some find difficult. Not only are we dealing with sexual addiction, but there is a basic disconnect between the marital act and having babies. Fertility is increasing looked upon as a disease and pregnancy is the expensive curse that results. Contraception permits irresponsibility and the treatment of bodies as toys for recreation. The dignity of the human person is undermined.

c) What natural methods are promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice the teachings of Humanae vitae?

Various forms of NFP are promoted. Critics often confuse them with the older form of Rhythm which often failed because it wrongly treated all female cycles as the same.

d) What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?

Some would throw in my face that Father So-&-So said it was okay. At one time there was some debate. However, now it is almost never mentioned. They have been told that it is all up to their consciences. Of course, the clergy who told them this neglected to mention the need for a properly formed conscience. I doubt that many would even understand the meaning of a dynamic Christian conscience. It needs to be formed in such a way that any judgment made conforms to the truth and respects the Church. The same can be said about the Eucharist. Almost everyone receives, even those in bad marriages and in serious sin.

e) What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?

The Church still generally teaches the orthodox position, but not everywhere. I know one girls’ high school where the religious sister said that she could not formally teach them about contraception but she could pass around a picture book (for educational purposes) with all the available forms of birth control imaged. Civic education is at least more honest, even if more hostile to the faith. Not only is artificial contraception taught, but condoms and similar services are rendered to students. Indeed, my public high school (Suitland, MD) regularly had the school nurse walking kids down to the local abortion clinic during our one hour lunch break. There is also disagreement on other topics like homosexuality and what constitutes tolerance.

f) How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?

Such can only be promoted if Catholics themselves are willing to be a real sign of contradiction. I know one couple with five or six children who are even harassed by parents and siblings for having “too many children.” They argue the economic issue and a lifestyle they are sacrificing. They speak about the environment and accuse them of being selfish for placing such an increased burden upon an already crowded world. Instead of converting the world, Catholics are increasingly trying to live traditional values within a self-imposed ghetto of like-minded “home-schooling” friends. Meanwhile, pressure is building to force them and others to conform to the contemporary hedonism. Benefits are being stripped from those who refuse to attend traditional schools. This has often landed families and home-schooling organizations in the courts. Some jurisdictions have attempted to outlaw home-schooling or to interfere with the curriculum. Is there a way to encourage larger and more faithful families without resorting to an isolation that might later make us more vulnerable to a hostile society? It seems to me that proper formation must come along with an aggressive evangelization. The Catholic/Christian message must be given its place in the public forum. That would also include the usage of all the modern technological ways that people communicate, today.

Filed under: Catholic, Church, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Marriage, Morality, Politics, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Question 8 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 22, 2013 by Father Joe

8. The Relationship between the Family and the Person

a) Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?

While Catholic teachings are often reduced to negativity or what couples cannot do, the Church actually speaks to the dignity of persons and our calling as disciples:

“Finally, let the spouses themselves, made to the image of the living God and enjoying the authentic dignity of persons, be joined to one another in equal affection, harmony of mind and the work of mutual sanctification. Thus, following Christ who is the principle of life, by the sacrifices and joys of their vocation and through their faithful love, married people can become witnesses of the mystery of love which the Lord revealed to the world by His dying and His rising up to life again” (GS 52).

While the institution of marriage and family life has weathered many social changes; there are still wonderful and moving examples of living out our discipleship in the modern world. Our people do not deal well with disconnected dogmatism and lack the jargon for theological discourse. What they need are inspiring stories where people of faith witness the Gospel. At the same time we must be wary that there are social and political forces around us that are neither sympathetic to either divine-positive or natural law nor desirous of real dialogue or collaboration with the Church. They would force our hands and redefine for us both faith and family. The task before us is how we might effectively (and not in a belligerent manner) promote the sanctity of life, exclusive heterosexual marriage and the importance of permanence in regard to promises. Again, I would recommend testimonies where we see exemplified mutual respect and unconditional love.

b) What critical situations in the family today can obstruct a person’s encounter with Christ?

The situations are numerous but would include: lack of prayer or knowing how to pray; absence from the Sunday observance; extended 6 to 7 day work weeks, even Sunday; poor formation and general religious ignorance; negative influences which overwhelm Church formation; the substitution of technology for immediate human and family contact; a hostile media; lacklustre sermons and unhappy or disinterested priests, etc.

c) To what extent do the many crisis of faith which people can experience affect family life?

The critical situations are epidemic. Father Peyton, “the Rosary priest,” always insisted that “the family that prays together stays together.” Families need to be the “little Church” where people learn about Jesus, say their prayers and participate weekly at Mass together. Most families today are lapsed from the Sunday Mass. Parents are not reading bible stories or the tales of the saints to their children. The television becomes the new tabernacle where minds and hearts are directed away from the Lord. Preaching is never heard but thousands upon thousands of secular messages flood the senses in programing and commercials. Computers and the internet is another challenge. Hours are spent with the new media but only a few seconds or no time at all is given to prayer or in quality family life. Adding to the challenge is a general religious ignorance. The new evangelization has already focused on this concern but too many of our people have yet to be reached. Do our people really have a personal and corporate relationship with Jesus Christ? Do husbands see themselves as intimately connected to Christ as the priests of their homes? Do wives view themselves in light of the mystery of Mary and the Church? Do they see the child as a great gift and as a reflection of the Christ Child? We have our work cut out for us.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Family, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Question 1 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 20, 2013 by Father Joe

The following series of questions allows the particular Churches to participate actively in the preparation of the Extraordinary Synod, whose purpose is to proclaim the Gospel in the context of the pastoral challenges facing the family today.

1. The Diffusion of the Teachings on the Family in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium

a) Describe how the Catholic Church’s teachings on the value of the family contained in the Bible, Gaudium et spes, Familiaris consortio and other documents of the post-conciliar Magisterium is understood by people today? What formation is given to our people on the Church’s teaching on family life?

There is not much in the way of workshops or seminars on family life or values. People are sometimes challenged by preaching but there is also a deafening silence from certain quarters. The popular media used to reinforce the Christian view of family but this is no longer the case. People are more formed by the secular culture than by the Church. Its interpretation of the family is increasingly open-ended and non-traditional. Those who attempt to restrict any definition of marriage and family are regarded as hateful and bigoted.

Priests and other professional “religious” people might know something of Vatican II documents and papal teachings, but many or most of the laity would not even be able to identify the titles. Except for Marriage Preparation, youth catechesis and preaching, there are probably few opportunities to form people in the Church’s understanding of family life. As for the Bible, there is widespread dissent upon issues like homosexuality and premarital sex. People either ignore the teachings or only view them in the negative sense, i.e. what is forbidden, not what is worthwhile. Indeed, given the clerical pederast scandals, the bishops and priests are not given much credibility as teachers on human sexuality. Even the more respectful are quick to object that celibate priests should tell husbands and wives what they can and cannot do in the bedroom. Many feel that we have lost the fight over artificial contraception and need to move on. Of course, the problem that arises is that of the proverbial slippery slope. Disconnect marriage from procreation and one immediately finds an increase in fornication, cohabitation, homosexual liaisons, and the plight of abortion. Indeed, our people fail to see how a contraceptive mentality is the handmaid to abortion.

A difficulty that many have with biblical teachings is that our Holy Book cannot be used as a clear manual of the moral life. Catholics do not know how to read Scripture in a contextual way. That is one of the reasons why anti-Catholic apologists are often effective with the use of so-called “isolated” proof texts. Our Lord had to deal with this problem over the matter of divorce. He argues that such was not the way it was supposed to be. He explains that Moses allowed divorce because of the “hardness of their hearts.” Thus, the polygamy, use of handmaidens as mistresses and the writ of divorce that we find among Old Testament patriarchs has no binding force upon the consciences of Christians. Everything is interpreted in light of the mystery that is Christ. Turning to the New Testament, many misconstrue the headship of the husband and father as culturally conditioned and not having any permanent value. Others might claim it as support for a dictatorial male role in the family. The Church would rightly speak of the value of both the head (husband/father) and the heart (wife/mother). A body cannot live without either a head or a heart.

Gaudium et spes, may be Vatican II teaching, but we all know how the nebulous “spirit” of the Council has been allowed over the past half-century to supplant genuine and timeless truths taught by the Council fathers. While most in the pews would be ignorant of the document itself; that is not to say that there has been no influence (one way or another) by preaching in light of it. The Council certainly appreciated the problems facing families, many of which are far worse today:

“Yet the excellence of this institution is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance, since polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation. Moreover, serious disturbances are caused in families by modern economic conditions, by influences at once social and psychological, and by the demands of civil society. Finally, in certain parts of the world problems resulting from population growth are generating concern” (GS #47). Redefinitions of marriage would not respect the teaching that “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children” (GS #50).

While the institution of marriage and family life has weathered many social changes; those changes today direct target the family for mutation into an analogous but different type of reality.

Many were enamoured by Pope John Paul II’s personal charm and his role in the collapse of Soviet communism; nevertheless, there remains a disconnect with Familiaris consortio and his depiction of Christian womanhood in another encyclical. He nails on the head the problem we face; however, only a piece-meal treatment is given to his writings and speeches by the media. The media, and even many religious teachers, feel that people are unable or unwilling to comprehend the middle-term or argumentation for the Church’s stances. Many favour contraception but few have ever read or could explain even one contention made in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. Instead, they parrot the so-called experts (really dissenters) who have explored the matters for them. The people then move in the direction of least resistance. They also tend to favour the prejudices of parents and peers who are also more formed by the world than by the Gospel. Pope John Paul II writes: “On the one hand, in fact, there is a more lively awareness of personal freedom and greater attention to the quality of interpersonal relationships in marriage, to promoting the dignity of women, to responsible procreation, to the education of children. There is also an awareness of the need for the development of interfamily relationships, for reciprocal spiritual and material assistance, the rediscovery of the ecclesial mission proper to the family and its responsibility for the building of a more just society. On the other hand, however, signs are not lacking of a disturbing degradation of some fundamental values: a mistaken theoretical and practical concept of the independence of the spouses in relation to each other; serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children; the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values; the growing number of divorces; the scourge of abortion; the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization; the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality” (FC #6). This is still where matters stand. Freedom or choice is apparently made the supreme value and yet the license for some can become the bondage for others. We see this with the government intrusion into the business of churches and the question of religious liberty. The primacy instead should be upon human dignity and objective moral values.

Do couples today even wonder about God’s plan for them in Christian marriage?

Do they see the marriage analogy of Christ and his Church as reflecting any value in their relationships?

Are children seen as the fruit of love and the gift of God, or rather as an accident of passion and a disease to be either medicated away or surgically extracted?

Given that sexual expression outside marriage is now regarded as a rite of becoming, how do we safeguard fidelity in marriage and the value of virginity?.

b) In those cases where the Church’s teaching is known, is it accepted fully or are there difficulties in putting it into practice? If so, what are they?

Is Church teaching really known anywhere or just caricatures of it? As with the commandments, there are a lot of perceived “thou shalt not’s” but not so many affirmative values about the intrinsic goodness and objective qualities of marriage and family. Easy divorce and remarriage, a predominate cohabitation and the mainstreaming of fornication has polluted the waters of popular opinion. The Church is viewed as backward. Traditional families are increasing squeezed into a social ghetto.

c) How widespread is the Church’s teaching in pastoral programs at the national, diocesan and parish levels? What catechesis is done on the family?

Catechesis is reserved to certain stages of life: catechesis for children, RCIA for adults, pre-Cana for engaged couples and maybe baptismal preparation classes for parents with babies. Bible studies rarely focus upon the subject, at least not at length. What other catechesis is there?

d) To what extent — and what aspects in particular — is this teaching actually known, accepted, rejected and/or criticized in areas outside the Church? What are the cultural factors which hinder the full reception of the Church’s teaching on the family?

What do people actually know? It is simple: a man and woman come together and have a baby. They may or may not be married. The man might not even stick around. Of course, with same sex-unions, there is also the increase of adoption and artificial insemination for lesbians. Grandparents also often raise grandchildren when the parents are too busy or do not care to embrace their responsibilities. Two-thirds of our people no longer go to church, so faith is a minimal factor. People look to the liberal media which is largely uninformed about religious questions. Instead of positive witnessing, self-conceited celebrities from television, movies, music and sports are worshipped by fans. The Church’s message often gets lost.

Filed under: Catholic, Family, Magisterium, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Phil Robertson & St. Paul Banned from A&E Network

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Father Joe

A&E says it is a supporter of the LGBT community and will not tolerate a negative view about homosexuality. Because of this, Phil Robertson is no longer welcome on the show “Duck Dynasty” and has been cast out from his television family. But what the network is really saying is that upon this issue there can be no freedom of speech and that while gays are welcome, traditional Christians are NOT.

We should not go out of our way to be mean-spirited or hateful; but the issue here is with inspired Scripture and Christianity. The faith and God’s Word might challenge us on many subjects. We might personally have hoped that Scripture or Church teaching were different on this or that subject. But the creature cannot dictate to the Creator what should or should not be.

What the article should have been labeled is this: “St. Paul Banned from A&E for His Homophobic Remarks!” Or, to take it one step forward,

MSN News – ‘Duck Dynasty’ star suspended over anti-gay comments

The Raw Story – Conservatives rally around suspended ‘Duck Dynasty’ star

FOX News – A&E suspends ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson

NBC – Catholic Governor Defends Robertson

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson has been suspended from the A&E reality series, following anti-gay remarks he made in an interview with GQ magazine.

Robertson caused controversy with his comments, in which he grouped gays with “drunks” and “terrorists,” and said that they won’t “inherit the kingdom of God.”

Asked what he considered sinful, Robertson told the magazine, “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he said in the interview. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

New American Bible (Catholic Translation):

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Romans 1:26-27

“Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

1 Timothy 1:8-11

“We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

Filed under: Apologetics, Bible, Conscience, Discipleship, Family, God, Homosexuality, Morality, News, Politics, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sexuality, Sin | 7 Comments »

A Rebuttal to Sex and the Single Priest

Posted on December 5, 2013 by Father Joe

THE NEW YORK TIMES, December 1, 2013

Sex and the Single Priest by BILL KELLER

Given that he long ago quit the Church, it is more than disingenuous for Bill Keller to cite the ancient corpse of his own Catholicism as grounds for critiquing priestly ministry or to belittle the celibate love realized by the majority of our clergy. He admits that he surrendered “citizenship” in the Catholic kingdom and is no longer “subject to [the Church’s] laws. Nevertheless, he would urge change to a law that speaks to priestly character and service like no other. It would seem to me that he forfeited long ago any right to participate in this inner-church discussion about priestly celibacy and the prospect of married priests.

The catalyst for his article is his tenuous tie to a religious sister from his school days; and not surprisingly one that met and married a priest. She gave up her veil and he took off his collar 41 years ago. The writer of the editorial is very sympathetic to them and their story. He is far less so to good priests and nuns who kept their vows. While he contends that the couple remained within the embrace of Catholicism while he did not; I would argue that both defected, although his was the more honest breech. John and Roberta Hydar simply went from being young dissenters to elderly ones. He remarks that they participate in a spin-off community where priests are married, same-sex marriages are solemnized and women are ordained. In other words, theirs is a faith community which claims a false Catholic pedigree and lives a lie— women playing priests, defrocked clergy feigning legitimacy without faculties, and blessing what God has deemed as perversion. This is his ideal for the Church, even though he has personally stopped believing. Note how quickly the spurning of the Church’s authority leads not only to violations of discipline but also to heretical teachings and practices.

Keller categorizes faithful Catholic priests as lonely men. Certainly the celibate must be comfortable with “aloneness,” but this is not the same as loneliness. Married men and women are not exempt from sometimes feeling lonely. Such feelings are part of the human condition. The Hydars recognize that change will not come in time for them. However, I would argue that the types of change they anticipate will never occur. The Church will never rewrite the moral code. Such subjectivism flies into the face of divine sovereignty. Further, their ecclesiology is not one of humility or dialogue but of arrogance and intimidation. They and their associates mold themselves into their own magisterium, albeit without any protection from the Holy Spirit. Roberta employs the jargon-expression that exposes their hypocrisy. She says that “there is no stopping Her by the institutional church.” One can make distinctions, but there is no real division between the Church as an institution and as a community of saving fellowship. The Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, men and women religious and the laity are all part of a single pie. It cannot be sliced or diced. There is no dissection. Separated from Peter or the Pope and we have no Church. The true “sensus fidelium” is not found in dissenters but rather in the men and women who give religious assent and filial obedience.

Despite words and symbolic gestures, the writer is not optimistic that Pope Francis will bring about substantial changes. Given that he means a reversal to Church stances, I think he is correct. Ultimately the progressive voices will be disappointed. Artificial contraception, homosexual relations and priestesses will never find acceptance in the Church of Christ. That is not to say that they will fail in finding a home somewhere else. There are plenty of faith institutions founded by men and swayed by the fads of the day.

But next Keller hits the nail on the head when he states that celibacy is a separate case. As a discipline this could be changed. It may not be retroactive and these men would still have to profess an orthodox faith. That would exclude many of the dissenters; but, they still have the freedom to jump ship for the passing raft of Anglicanism.

He speaks about the urgency to change the discipline without any appeal to the supernatural. Rather, he references that mandatory celibacy is driving away good prospects, that the shortage is immediate and dire, that we need clergy with firsthand experience with family issues, and that we must counteract the clericalism that has enabled and sought to cover-up pedophilia. After colluding with an ex-nun and an ex-priest, Keller next quotes Thomas Groome, another former priest, who observes that celibate priests are viewed by most people as “peculiar” and “not to be trusted.” He says that of the hundreds of priests he has known; only three or four have lived a rich and “life-giving” celibacy. Of course, the problem may have been that as an unhappy priest, himself, he hanged around with other discontents. Most priests I know are happy and faithful to their promises. This article is biased or tilted against orthodoxy from the very beginning.

Keller then tells us that celibacy is not a doctrine (true) but blasts it instead as “a cultural and historical aberration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical studies reveal that many early priests lived in perfect continence with their wives. The periodic celibacy of the Jewish priests became perpetual for Catholic priests. Except for the national churches of the East, celibacy quickly became the ideal in the West. We see decree after decree in its favor reaching a climax with the First Lateran Council (1123 AD). Priestly celibacy was no oddity but the norm and a signature element in priestly character or identity. It signified total dedication to God and to his Church. His very flesh became an eschatological sign. Celibacy was not a refusal to love but a more expansive way of loving, close to the heart and witness of Christ. The aberration was the married priest, but without any negative judgment against the validity of his share in holy orders. The crimes and scandals of our times are not due to celibacy but rather to a refusal to be faithful to this solemn promise or vow. The charge that celibacy was instituted simply to safeguard Church properties against children and inheritance is a slur with only isolated substance. The resources of the Church had to be protected, for sure, but the greater possession of the Church was the priest, himself. Why demand celibacy only to those men who would be candidates for the episcopacy? Roman Catholicism requires and both God and his people deserve such a single-hearted loving from all priests.

Keller says that the Church looks the other way in regard to priests who attempt marriage in parts of Africa and Latin America. I cannot say for sure if there is a hesitance to censure these reprobates; but regardless, they are not free to marry and they place both themselves and their love-interests in mortal sin. Why should we reward rebellion and sin? The truth and objective morality is not open to the democratic process or human capriciousness. This is not dissimilar from the “everyone’s doing it” argument that we so often hear in regard to fornication, cohabitation and artificial contraception. It has also been employed in regard to self-destructive behaviors like drug use. It is the poorest possible argument. Indeed, it is no argument at all.

Archbishop Pietro Parolin could certainly state that priestly celibacy would be open for discussion; however, this should not imply that any change is in the offering. Indeed, I would not be surprised if there is a tightening regarding future Catholic Anglican-use priests (particularly sons of the current married clergy) and a reiteration that the Catholic Eastern rites should not ordain married men for priestly service in this hemisphere. Pope Francis is all about poverty; celibacy more than any other trait points to the rich man who was asked to put aside everything to follow Jesus. Like the apostles, we leave everything and everyone else behind. This mandated a special suffering for the married apostles. In light of Christ’s example and the preference of St. Paul, the Church would spare its priests from struggling with divided loyalties and hearts. It is sufficient that we have many married deacons. There is no need to open the priesthood to married men. It is a fallacious assertion that it will turn around the shortage in vocations. Many Protestant communities have married clergy and they also suffer from a lack of good vocations. Married ministers have also not preserved them from scandals.

Keller returns to his dissenting couple and John (the ex-priest) says that most of those who left ministry would have stayed if celibacy had been made optional. However, even in the Eastern model, men are married before ordination, not afterwards. Had it been permitted, he and the thousands who left with him could still not get married and continue to serve as priests. Note that the married Episcopalian priests who become Catholic clergy are ordained “absolutely” because Anglican orders are neither accepted by Catholicism as valid nor licit. Priests who promised celibacy would be expected to keep their promises; just as married men would be required to keep their nuptial vows as they entered holy orders. It would not be retroactive. Another wrinkle in John Hydar’s contention is that a majority of those priests who left ministry for marriage have since divorced and many are remarried. Why should we think that men who cavalierly break one promise will keep another? In any case, John and many like him also espouse a false ecclesiology where legitimate authority is undermined. They campaign for doctrinal heresies like priestesses. Some of these men who left have seen their wives ordained so that they can feign the sacraments beside them. There is no way for them to come back. There is no viable path for them, except after a heartfelt repentance demonstrated by public renunciation of their falsehoods and their counterfeit ministry. Such might allow them back into the pews but they would never again stand before the altar. That ship has forever sailed.

Optional celibacy and married priests may become a future eventuality; but I hope not. The writer laments that Roberta Hydar passed from cancer. She will never see that day. We can pray for her soul. However, I would submit that most of the priests and the women for whom they left are elderly now. It may be the wisdom of the Church that they pass away and their small pseudo-churches with them before the Church further explores this issue. If we see optional celibacy, the candidates with be committed and obedient Catholics, homeschoolers, with large families, filled with traditional piety and practicing timeless objective morality. They will be the right kind of men. Their wives will accept the headship of their husbands and suffer much in knowing that their husbands belong more to the Church than to them.

The history of celibacy in the Church is no aberration. Rather, it is a calling intimately connected with the vocation of priesthood. It is a discipline that has doctrinal implications in the bridal imagery of Christ the groom to his bride the Church. Every priest at the altar enters into this mystery. Celibacy best preserves its meaning and realizes it. Celibacy is not a man-made construct. As with the transmission of the deposit of faith and the efficacy of the sacraments, the legacy of priestly celibacy represents a significant movement of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. Christ does not fight his Church. If a man is truly called, God will give him the gift of celibacy.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Celibacy, Discipleship, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Pope Francis, Priestesses, Priests, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Women Priests | 1 Comment »

How a Celibate Priest Looks at Women

Posted on October 13, 2013 by Father Joe

Friends have joked from time to time that I seem shy in public. What they mean is that I tend to look at the ground. I am not the only priest who does this. What they interpret as shyness is something more or quite deliberate. Many of us were taught or picked up from other priests what was commonly called a concern for the “custody of the eyes.” The proverb is quite true that “the eyes are the windows to the soul.” Men are both visual and tactile. We like to see and to touch. This starts with childhood. A little boy sees a cookie and his eyes open wide with delight and he immediately reaches for it, even if it is forbidden by his mother because it will spoil his supper. The man appreciates that there are sweeter delights than cookies and candy. The hormones kick in, we pass through puberty, and suddenly we are all eyes and maybe hands for the girls. Women might be drawn to the fact that a priest is one man who does not treat them as a sexual object. He is regarded as safe and as a spiritual man. This is as it should be. The priest wants to save souls, and in this he must regard men and women as the same. More than this, he must give every woman the same regard— young and old, smart and dull, fat or skinny, attractive or ugly, etc. He must look upon them with the eyes of Christ. Nevertheless, the priest is still a man.

I recall that one sensitive woman became hurt because the local priest seemed to have time and eyes for everyone but her. He would glance at her and look away when he talked. She complained that he did not like her. The woman was quite wrong. He liked her very much, too much. The priest thought she was intensely attractive. He looked away so that he might not look her over, up and down. Women can also become upset if they should notice or suspect that a priest (like other men) is devouring them with his eyes. Flattery for one is deep disappointment for another. The priest is concerned about such impressions. He is also worried about his own soul. That is one of the reasons why I (along with many other priests) avoid beaches and public pools. Scantily clothed women make the proper custody of the eyes almost impossible. These images linger in the mind and what enters the mind can quickly move to the imagination.

Priests face many hurdles, but by the grace of God we remain strong and resilient. Celibacy is but one area of challenge but it is a crucial one if we want to continue as shepherds of Christ’s flock. We are faithful, obedient and do our duty.

As a priest mindful of his duty, I am drawn to Robert Frost’s Poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” A stanza reads:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | 12 Comments »

Priestly Celibacy: A Truth Some Discover the Hard Way

Posted on October 13, 2013 by Father Joe

A number of years ago, I had regular association with seminarians. As a young priest, I discovered certain truths which I lamented were not shared with me in my own formation. I passed them on to these good men. The most pressing of these revelations was that the seminarian and priest had less to fear from the bad girl as they did from the good one. Clergy are religious men, generally turned off by overt seduction, fragrant immodesty and sexual vulgarity. However, their hearts are very vulnerable to the woman whose piety is reflective of their own. A pretty girl who loves the Church and the priesthood can very quickly start loving one particular priest. Priests are men and their temptation is ironically found in their seriousness. A religious woman, modest and demure, will come to the priest for spiritual guidance and the sacraments. She will be the first to volunteer and the last to go home. She will sympathize with the priest and defend him against his critics. She never misses Mass and expresses how she is deeply moved and enriched by his preaching. In short, if priests could marry, she is everything he could ever want. He seeks, within the sphere of ministry, to be a father-figure and spiritual physician for her soul; but according to nature, a part of him begins to long for physical intimacy with her, for a shared life, and for a home where he could claim her as wife and mother to his children. The priest has no choice but to minister to her and other women like her. We cannot neglect the very ones most drawn to the faith. However, the priest must be honest about his emotions and very circumspect about his actions. He must not fool himself— this woman is dangerous to his vocation as a celibate priest. And he might pose a threat to her. No excuses can be tolerated so that he can spend more time to be near her. The priest needs to focus less on friendship with such a woman and more upon his duty to her as a priest. His energies must not be directed exclusively toward her. His promise mandates that as a priest, he should remain morally strong, for his own sake, for hers and for the larger believing community. Along with others, he gives her the sacraments; but he should not go out of his way to give her special favors and gifts. The Eucharist is enough for her; anything more constitutes the beginnings of flirtation. He might presume that she is safe with him; certainly more so than with other men who would quickly take advantage of her. But he is lying to himself and placing them both at risk. Unchecked, one day they notice their eyes upon one another and there comes the full awakening of what they have done. He holds her hand or gives her a quick embrace or maybe they even share a tender kiss, and a boundary line is crossed. It is still not too late but to break it off now will wound them both, possibly for a lifetime. He could have spared them both something of this pain. Some priests will leave ministry and if there is marriage, the woman will always carry guilt. She will think, “Did I cost the Church the services of a good priest? Did I selfishly steal him for myself?” If the priest makes distance, then they will be haunted by a love unfulfilled and a friendship that was needlessly destroyed by their weakness. There is a lesson learned. Sometimes you cannot be with the person you love. You cannot have everything you want. We usually associate love with presence and union; however, there is a sacrificial love that lets go or surrenders the beloved. Many priests have had this experience and can say, even many years later, “I loved her so much, I let her go.” Such a business can take a man to the Cross. One priest confided that he accidentally ran into a girl that he had fallen in love with over a quarter of a century earlier. It tore him up inside but he made distance from her to preserve his priesthood and to protect her honor. She was very cordial and introduced him to her husband and children. He tried desperately to keep tears from his eyes. Afterwards he was visibly shaking. Although older he thought she was still beautiful. All his old feelings returned and he spent the night in tears. He realized that he still loved her, that he would always love her. She could have been his. Her children could have been his children. But they went their separate ways. She was happy and had her family. What did he have? Hopefully he would look upon his years of priesthood with a sense of accomplishment and joy. Quickly as possible he needed to shrug off the ghost of unexplored potentialities. The fact that he had not ruined her life should have given him a degree of peace. He did the right thing, for both of them.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | 4 Comments »

Priestly Celibacy: In Order to Be Loved, We Need to Love

Posted on October 12, 2013 by Father Joe

If the priest feels he has no one who really loves him, he may respond in kind and stop loving. When this happens the priest begins to die. The very meaning of his celibacy and priestly service is as a formula of loving. He should realize the love of Christ on the altar and upon the Cross. Just as muscles weaken with inactivity, a priest’s spiritual heart atrophies if he avoids loving. This can also happen with priest-transfers. It hurts to constantly make friends and then move on. He might reach a stage where he stops loving those around him so as to avoid being hurt again. Complicating the situation is the general understanding of love. The word has too many definitions and yet, in practice, is often immediately and popularly equated with romantic situations. The priest (and the Church he serves) must allow himself to explore the myriad colors of love that are in sync with his vocation as a celibate priest. The issue of scandal, first with defections for relationships with women and second with a failure to adequately protect children, has precipitated a forced dissipation in the priest’s fatherly associations. In the tradition of Don Bosco and Father Flanagan, priests interceded for the needs of children and spent time with them. The ever tightening policies and fear of litigation have stripped the priest of this sacred trust and have thus diminished both his effective value and his satisfaction from ministry. The circle of religious brothers and sisters, as well as other priests, has been devastated by the diminutive nature of current vocations. Like a bubble that has popped, he is no longer surrounded by these supportive relations. The general air of hospitality and volunteerism exhibited in parochial settings has been increasingly strained by recriminations and suspicion toward clergy. The priest is no longer welcome in every home and those that do extend invitations might seek to link their generosity to a manipulative favor, often to the detriment of another parishioner. When the pastor fails to comply or refuses to share secrets that fuel gossip, he is summarily dismissed, never to cross their threshold again, barring the possibility of last rites. Even requests for sick calls are fewer than in the past and are frequently redirected to extraordinary ministers.

Eros is denied the priest, at least in its extreme and consensual manifestation; but also weakened are paternal love and fraternal love. Society as a whole and the Church authorities strip away the priest’s supports leaving little or nothing to replace them. It is no wonder the married-priest movement is picking up steam. Platters are becoming empty and priests are hungry for friendship and sharing love.

Nevertheless, with all the contemporary hurdles, most celibate priests are happy, even if increasingly lonely. They find real and sustaining satisfaction from prayer and worship. While they take care of many, there is an indescribable delight over the absolution given individual sinners. God has entrusted them with the authority to forgive transgressions, great and small. With a gesture and a few words, they can steal the damned from the devil. They have power over hell. Never in the history of the world had Almighty God given such power to men as he did to his priests. He can draw God down from heaven and place him upon the altar as our food and he can plant his Spirit and grace into human hearts, transforming a sinner into a saint. Good priests are always in awe of that with which God has entrusted them.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Priestly Celibacy: Challenges to Priestly Fellowship

Posted on October 11, 2013 by Father Joe

I have already spoken about the need for close friendships among the presbyterate. The priest shortage and the busy lives of clergy make this increasingly difficult. But there is another factor that damages efforts at fellowship among clergy and that is ambition or careerism. I have always thought that such was poison to the essence of priesthood as servant. Nevertheless, men get caught up in titles, positions of honored trust, desires for influential parishes and dreams of the purple. The best bishops battle this attitude in their priests, insisting upon hearing their opinions and urging against “yes-men.” Ambitious men might distance themselves from certain assignments and from brother priests who are seen as an embarrassment or possible roadblock to their desired promotion. They fear guilt by association. There is also the dilemma of dishonesty. A priest could be afraid to share personal struggles and feelings because tongues might wag and his reputation would be tarnished. A priest might have personality quirks and phobias. He is relegated to special ministry or a hospital. He wants to be a pastor but he is not trusted. No one shares the truth with him. Rather, he is given feigned praise for his dedication to sick calls or even with secular matters like cutting the grass or watching the boiler. Whatever the reason, certain priests find themselves distanced from their brother priests. This intensifies their eccentricities and their experience of loneliness. Such might also amplify their struggle with feelings of inadequacy and self-worth. Priests should not be so self-possessed that they ignore the needs of others, either parishioners or brother priests. Given the scandals, the current atmosphere is not a healthy one among priests and their bishops. One case of injustice, even if only apparent, resonates in a negative way throughout the presbyterate. Priests view themselves as very vulnerable to allegations and gossip of any kind. This effectively shuts down communication or dialogue. I recall one priest literally bragging about his disclosure to the bishop of what he presumed to be a secret sin or scandal of a brother priest. When I asked if he had privately discussed his concern with his brother, he said no. I was very blunt, which wins me few accolades, and told him that he wronged his brother in ministry. His allegations were proven to be largely groundless and a good man suffered needlessly. He was trying to win points as a squealer; instead he should have followed the Scriptural pattern where Church censure is the final appeal. Both men, in this instance, were now needlessly alienated from others in the presbyterate. Who will share anything with a man who only tattles? Who will seek active fellowship with a man charged with scandal and immorality? Priests need to preach and witness to what is right. But they are fundamentally ordained as healers. If we forget this, then we have lost sight of a truth that resides at the very heart of the priesthood.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Priestly Celibacy: The Issue of Loneliness

Posted on October 10, 2013 by Father Joe

A priest’s celibacy faces challenges on many fronts. The most obvious is the issue of sexual attraction and yet that may not prove as great a temptation as that posed by loneliness. Rectories with multiple priests in the past are today frequently the home of only one. Priests become accustomed to a definite “aloneness” but there are times when his separation from most other men and his solitary life might truly be trying. Women are among the first to give comfort and support. But here is the danger. Even if no sexual indiscretion is ever committed, a priest could develop a friendship with a secretary, catechist or housekeeper that might be somewhat analogous to a husband-wife relationship. This can catch the man unawares. Then when the time comes for a transfer, he finds that there is a bond that holds him. The Church is well aware of such possibilities and so priests are generally reassigned every six to twelve years. He really has no home except the Church. It is vital that he knows this. Yes, even if he has living parents and brothers and sisters; he belongs first to the Church. My mother cried on my ordination day when my father spoke about this to her. She said, “He will always be mine!” Yes, she is right, to a degree, because a man’s mother and the Blessed Virgin Mary are the two closest women to a celibate priest. But there need be no contradiction; their motherhood is symbolic or expressive of Mother Church to which he belongs.

It is said that a priest who gets into trouble is a priest who has neglected his prayers. I would add to this the lack of continuing study and theological reflection. If there is a hole in his heart it is likely that a woman might begin to fill it. The only safeguard is to avoid a vacuum and to fill the space with the presence of God. Such a man will know that he is never really alone. The Lord is desirous of an intimate relation with his priests, so that he might satisfy as their treasure and sole passion.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Priests, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »