Sin | Blogger Priest

Question 3 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 24, 2013 by Father Joe

3. The Pastoral Care of the Family in Evangelization

a) What experiences have emerged in recent decades regarding marriage preparation? What efforts are there to stimulate the task of evangelization of the couple and of the family? How can an awareness of the family as the “domestic Church” be promoted?

It seems to me that marriage preparation is frequently too little too late. The class or classes become streamlined so that an obligation might be checked off the list. It seems to me that a successful program would cover basic Christian anthropology and would be so challenging that some couples would even decide not to get married or to continue relationships. We do not want to rubberstamp bad choices or assist people in going through the motions. There is already too much of this with our children. The Archdiocese has standards for catechesis but the guidelines have no teeth and are not binding for advancement. 60% was regarded as passing and yet in my book that rates a failing grade. Are we doing the same with marriage preparation programs? Many dioceses are also pushing off the responsibility to external groups or to individual parishes. But there is no mandated accreditation for these efforts. Some even seem to cloud the truth. For instance, methods of NFP might be taught. However, even NFP is immoral if practiced to avoid pregnancy. It can only be permitted for the spacing of births or to get pregnant. The exclusion of openness to procreation in the marital act is wrong and sinful. Do our couples know this? Are they getting NFP instruction? And is that instruction trustworthy? Hopefully the Theology of the Body plays a large part of such efforts. Catholics should appreciate the sacramental nature of marriage as a covenant established and renewed between themselves and the Lord. A love and passion for persons should be given preference over disorientation or the poison of lust and selfishness. They need to see the family as the little church.

Beyond content, I am also worried about timing. Instruction about marriage and moral human sexuality (not just a biology class) must begin early enough so that mistakes will not be blindly embraced in the dating scene. Courtship should be taught over the popular dating efforts in modern society. The truth that sex belongs only to marriage should be emphasized and witnessed by others. Catholics should also be encouraged to reserve their courtship to Catholics. When a Catholic dates a non-Catholic, we should not hesitate or be embarrassed to emphasize the faith and the joy of conversion to the truth. Such marriages still require dispensations. Maybe we should require RCIA for mixed marriages and require a year or more waiting period? If the husband and father is head of the home, it is only fitting that he should be the religious head. If he is not a Catholic, then this is compromised. Similarly the mother and wife should have a Catholic sense taken from the model of the Blessed Mother. A non-believer would not have this benefit. Marriages to Protestants might sometimes be tolerated. Marriages to Jews and especially Moslems should be strenuously discouraged. It is best not to date such persons. I am not arguing for an absolute prohibition but there should be a clear mutual agreement that the children will be raised as Catholics. Such is for the good of faith, for the Catholic party and the children. I really think we have to rethink how we do things in our secular and diverse culture.

b) How successful have you been in proposing a manner of praying within the family which can withstand life’s complexities and today’s culture?

What is the measure of such success? People do not always share the intimacies of their spiritual lives. I have urged that we talk with God and that if we love someone then we want to know as much as possible about them. Prayer is a two-way communication that enhances and makes real our personal and corporate relationship with Jesus. I put together a small book for parishioners which speaks briefly about the meaning and variety of prayer; I list important devotional works that are part of our Catholic heritage; and I reproduce some traditional prayers. We live in a busy age, but we must make time for prayer, even if only short aspirations. Parishioners asked for and took the little book. Hopefully, along with my pastoral teaching it made some small difference. We instigated the Traveling Madonna (to pray for marriages and the right to life) and the Traveling Chalice (to pray for priests and vocations). I have urged families to set up prayer spaces or shrines in their homes; to consecrate their homes to the Sacred Heat and to have house blessings. I have suggested that couples have a pattern of prayer into which they can later introduce their children. Hopefully, they have taken all this to heart. Trying to transmit our faith and values can be frustrating. One sometimes wonders if any difference was made. But God does not demand that we be successful, only faithful.

c) In the current generational crisis, how have Christian families been able to fulfil their vocation of transmitting the faith?

You cannot give what you do not possess. The leaders of the Church played the part of the ostrich with its head in the sand. It was pretended that everything was going well while the house of cards was collapsing all around us. Many only became alert to the problem in the face of an aging demographic and a shortage of funds. If 75% of our people no longer participate at Sunday Mass, I think it is safe to say that the faith is not being transmitted to the next generation. Many are baptized and remain uncatechised. We can no longer count Catholics on the basis of sacraments received. Even among those practicing their faith, it is hard to light a fire for the faith. Parents are supposed to be the chief religious educators of their children, but practicing Catholics increasingly relinquish this role to the schools or to once-a-week catechesis. It just does not work. Past poor catechesis from the 1960’s and 70’s still haunts us. Adults cannot pass on or transmit what they do not have. There are several lost generations. Every Catholic family, no matter whether they use a parochial school or parish-based program, should be in essence a home-schooling family when it comes to our Catholic religion. It is not enough to do homework and count on others. Religious faith and values should be studied every night without exception. Indeed, the habit of study should remain with our people so that as adults they will continue to explore the depths of our holy faith. But such is right now rarely the case.

d) In what way have the local Churches and movements on family spirituality been able to create ways of acting which are exemplary?

I think such efforts are few and far between. Certainly young adults and teen groups are sometimes the source of religious education, prayer and worship. Small faith-sharing groups were once popular, but some authorities became concerned about the quality of materials and what was being taught. The Rosary remains a staple and the Stations of the Cross are important during Lent. Parishes offer Eucharistic Adoration. Charismatic prayer groups still exist although they seem less prevalent than a few years ago. They also suffered from too much dependence on lay prayer leaders, some of whom became overly intrusive into the personal lives of members. I would encourage the restoration of traditional efforts like the Holy Name Society, Sodalities, and the spiritual works of fraternal organizations like the Knights of Columbus.

e) What specific contribution can couples and families make to spreading a credible and holistic idea of the couple and the Christian family today?

First, we must resist the modern temptation to clericalize the laity with all sorts of Church ministries. Second, everything should be done to foster family life and values. (Catholics and other Christians should refrain from shopping on Sundays and spend time at home. This will also allow believers to be with their families and to be able to worship instead of working. We need to safeguard the Lord’s Day better than we have lately. Third, priests should consecrate the homes of couples in faithful marriages, reinforcing the sanctity of the home and urging them to keep negative elements outside their doors. Fourth, couples should stay together despite the obstacles and treat their fertility as a great blessing to be fulfilled with joy. In other words, love each other, have babies, work hard, and go to Mass. It really is no secret.

f) What pastoral care has the Church provided in supporting couples in formation and couples in crisis situations?

I will speak more about this in later questions, but feel that marriage preparation should be more than a quick Pre-Cana class. Marriage is a life-time commitment. Maybe it needs something more akin to the RCIA? Too often halls are rented and gowns are bought before the couple calls the priest. We need to turn this agenda around. While there are special programs to help hurting marriages; we also need a pool of professional counsellors who would be on call at modest cost to assist couples in struggling marriages. These counsellors should have the mind of the Church. Secular counsellors often see little or no value in permanence and quickly urge clients to separate and terminate relationships.

Filed under: Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Conscience, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Patheos, Photos, Pro-Life, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Question 4 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 24, 2013 by Father Joe

4. Pastoral Care in Certain Difficult Marital Situations

a) Is cohabitation ad experimentum a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage?

Not only is it a reality, the practice is reaching beyond “ad experimentum” in becoming a state of life all its own. Sure, there are couples who “shack up” to see if they are meant to live together, but many cohabitate for years without getting married or even intending to get married. Society, itself, is unsure how to deal with the phenomena. For instance, laws for common law marriages are falling by the wayside. It created situations where couples were regarded as legally married while they, themselves, thought they were not. I suspect that some of these couples suffer from ambivalence about marriage or a fear of the lasting commitment. Of course, the epidemic of divorce may also be a catalyst. I have heard couples say that they want to be sure and that they do not become another negative statistic. Ironically, those who cohabitate before marriage do not seem to fare as well as those couples who are virginal and/or chaste; why is this? I would submit that cohabitation grants none of the spiritual safeguards for marriage and thus is not analogous. There are no graces from the sacrament; indeed, the couple are most probably living in a state of mortal sin. Such cohabitation presumes that the couple are engaged in sexual activity or fornication. Indeed, some couples live together because it makes sexual congress easier. Others live together because they take refuge in each other within an increasingly cold and disconnected world. Men and women are lonely and afraid. Even though they are not married, they cling to each other for support and companionship. Unfortunately, mortal sin is no adequate preparation for a grace-filled marriage. Couples say they love each other… but not enough to wait and not enough to preserve the holiness of the beloved. This selfishness and mind-set is a terminal kernel.

I should add that when these couples come to the priest and ask for marriage, they are frequently treated the same as chaste couples trying to do right by God, the Church and themselves. A girl can be pregnant but she wants to wear white. But if she is living with her boyfriend and having sex, it becomes a broken sign. We can recommend separation but sometimes the length of the relationships and the logistics (including finances) of cohabitation would make this difficult. I have them stay apart the night before the wedding and require them to go to Confession. I would recommend that we marry such couples but do so in a way that minimizes the scandal. They could offer their vows in a chapel of the rectory or in a small service with less than a dozen friends. We could let couples know that cohabitation would cost them the marriage ceremony of their dreams. These are precisely the people who need to ponder more the inner realities of marriage and less the external trappings.

b) Do unions which are not recognized either religiously or civilly exist? Are reliable statistics available?

Is this question for real? Of course, they exist. Indeed, this year for the first time in the United States there are more couples cohabitating than married.

“About a quarter of women move in with a romantic partner before the age of 20, and more women than ever live with a partner before they get married, according to a new report by the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly half of women (48 percent) between the ages of 15 and 44 lived with a partner before getting married between the years of 2006 and 2010, an 11 percent jump since 2002 and a 41 percent jump since 1995. Less than a quarter of so-called “first unions”—meaning a first marriage or first cohabitation—were marriages during that span. In 2002, 30 percent of “first unions” were marriages. According to the report, 1-in-5 women became pregnant during their first year of premarital cohabitation, 40 percent of first marital cohabitations transitioned to marriage within three years, and 27 percent dissolved within five years. People are also prolonging marriage for longer after moving in together, according to the report. In 1995, the average length of a cohabitation that transitioned into marriage was 14 months—between 2006 and 2010, it was 21 months.”

c) Are separated couples and those divorced and remarried a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage? How do you deal with this situation in appropriate pastoral programs?

Again, of course this is a reality here in the U.S. and the Archdiocese of Washington. It was hoped that the six-month waiting period before marriage, and the accompanying preparation, might help. But the divorce issue still plagues us. The problem’s answer is shared Catholic faith and values. If couples worship and pray together, a Gallup poll shows that all but 2% stay together. And even that 2% might be an aberration from false responses. Couples that do not pray face a 50% plus divorce rate. This truth speaks for itself. If a couple practices sacrificial love and places their marriage into God’s hands, then his grace will sustain them. If they ignore his help, they are more liable to fail. As for percentages in the parish, I cannot say. Many no longer even tell the priest. This includes those who have remarried outside the Church. This complicates matters and makes for embarrassing situations among volunteers for parish service or for membership in fraternal organizations like the Knights of St. John and the Knights of Columbus. Like most priests, I have no specific parish program to deal with this issue. The priest will offer counselling if they come forward and assist in an annulment and/or subsequent convalidation. The issue is delicate and sometimes frightfully complicated. I had a situation of a couple that wanted to get married in the Church. They were both Catholic but the man was previously married outside the Church in a civil court. The Church would not recognize that bond but it lasted some years and they had children. The man procured a Declaration of Nullity Because of Lack of Canonical Form. There was nothing really stopping the second (true) marriage. However, as the priest I felt corrupted by the situation. He had abandoned his prior spouse and the girl he wanted to marry was “the other woman” who bragged about stealing him from his civilly married spouse. Married or not, it was a sickening situation!

I know that there are programs in the Archdiocese to assist troubled marriages, like Retrouvaille. There is also Marriage Encounter.

d) In all the above cases, how do the baptized live in this irregular situation? Are they aware of it? Are they simply indifferent? Do they feel marginalized or suffer from the impossibility of receiving the sacraments?

Some drop out regarding religious practice. Others act as if it is no big deal. Those who take Church teaching seriously feel guilt but there is resentment that they cannot receive absolution and the Eucharist. They frequently want to be treated as regularized when they are not. Some priests have told them that it is up to their conscience as to receive Holy Communion or not. They might even shop around for priests tolerant on this point. Of course, guidelines in the Archdiocese of Washington are currently rather permissive and priests are generally not allowed to withhold the sacrament. (Although many of us regularly substitute a quick blessing gesture, something in itself which is not proper to the communion line but which helps to avoid a negative confrontation.) I have encountered a few over the years who were unaware of Catholic marriage law, but only a few. There has also been the wrinkle of renegade rent-a-priests who posture as clergy in good standing and witness marriages without faculties. I have encountered two cases of this in the last two years.

e) What questions do divorced and remarried people pose to the Church concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation? Among those persons who find themselves in these situations, how many ask for these sacraments?

They all pretty much ask for the sacraments or are upset when they discover that they should refrain. That is why they see the priest. The majority drop out and probably do not care. They will not make the effort to talk to a priest. Unfortunately, everyone who goes to Mass these days takes the sacrament. Ushers have to be careful not to intimidate such people to come up so as to avoid shame.

f) Could a simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?

There has already been criticism of the many annulments granted in the United States. I suspect simplification would make the problem worse. Annulments must always be in conformity to the truth. There are some situations that cannot be fixed.

g) Does a ministry exist to attend to these cases? Describe this pastoral ministry? Do such programs exist on the national and diocesan levels? How is God’s mercy proclaimed to separated couples and those divorced and remarried and how does the Church put into practice her support for them in their journey of faith?

I think we need to do more to emphasize the value of the person who is not married or who through no fault of his or her own must now live as a single person after a failed marriage. Couples are not made up of two halfs that are made whole. We are complete unto ourselves. Not all stories in this world end happily. It is then we seek solidarity and consolation in Christ’s saving Cross.

Although not always conveniently located, there are also groups for Divorced and Separated Catholics. However, I am not certain that these always constitute the proper pastoral response. I have known divorced people becoming romantically inclined with people who share their hurts and disappointments. Instead of encouraging separated Catholics to mend fences, it makes the breaks permanent. Couples start dating when in the eyes of the Church they still belong to their lawful spouse. The Church, after all, does not recognize divorce and the person or persons who precipitate the break commit sin. This last point is either glossed over or denied, even by some assisting clergy. Are we encouraging fornication, cohabitation and adultery with our support groups for separated and divorced Catholics? Why is it that we do not encourage them to be chaste and content on their own? Do we really want a breeding ground for romance for this group?

Filed under: Adultery, Archdiocese, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homily, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Parish, Religion, Repentance, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Question 5 – Extraordinary Synod on the Family

Posted on December 24, 2013 by Father Joe

5. On Unions of Persons of the Same Sex

a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?

Yes, such is the case in many states and the Bishops and the Maryland Catholic Conference lost the fight in Maryland despite an aggressive Marriage Matters campaign.

b) What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same sex and the people involved in this type of union?

There is a real culture war and increased tension between conservative and liberal churches. Prince George’s is heavily Democratic and yet the voters just barely opposed the same-sex legislation. However, the high numbers in favour in other areas like Baltimore and Montgomery County carried the day for those proposing same-sex marriages. The Black churches leaned against the proposal while the liberal white churches and reformed synagogues were in favour. The Episcopal churches also largely supported the change.

c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?

That is the question right now, is it not? The Pope’s assertion about who is he to judge has fuelled speculation of a shift in attitude in the Catholic Church toward homosexuals. My late cousin (Fr. John Harvey) was the founder of COURAGE, an organization that urged homosexuals to embrace celibate love, service to others and prayer. He took a great deal of ridicule from the renegade DIGNITY group that argued for the acceptance of homosexual acts. We can urge them to go regularly to confession and Mass. But it seems to me that we cannot rubberstamp sin. Complicating the issue, homosexuals identify themselves chiefly by their orientation. Thus they reject the “hate the sin but love the sinner” scenario. They contend that if you judge “how they love” then you judge them and that this is hate speech.

d) In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the faith?

Boston and Washington, DC shut down their adoption services. What else can we do? I fail to see how we might deliberately place children into homosexual and lesbian households. There may be no pastoral answer that suffices. Having said this, other organizations are going to make this happen. Lesbians are also going to get themselves inseminated (they often abort male children). If they come to us it seems that we should reach out to them with compassion and understanding of human weakness and the need for love. Life is messy and we may have to get our hands dirty. Some situations are going to defy correction or fixing. News stories of parochial schools firing lesbian teachers or expelling children with “two daddies or two mommies” only seems to make matters worse. But how should we proceed?

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Marriage, Modesty, Morality, Politics, Pope Francis, Pro-Life, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

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 »

Can the Most Wicked Be Forgiven?

Posted on December 7, 2013 by Father Joe

Mike asked a few questions about forgiveness that I have heard from others and are worth sharing.

1. I have been wondering about forgiveness in general. Are there any sins so bad that they will never be forgiven, regardless of how much you repent and accept Jesus?

As long as you are alive, there is hope. If you are sorry, you can be forgiven. However, after death, our orientation and choice becomes permanent. Of course, we are creatures of habit. The longer we wallow in our sins, the less able and willing we might be to crawl out of the hole we have made for ourselves. God wants to save us; but, we must also want to be saved.

2. As an extreme hypothetical, if Lucifer suddenly repented and asked for forgiveness from God, would he be forgiven?

This is regarded as a nonsense question. It contains within itself a self-contradiction. The devil is a pure spirit. He lives outside of time. He has turned away from God. He cannot turn back. He hates God. This status is forever. Hell is more than a place. It is also a disposition. That is why the devil can say, “I am hell.” We should not feel sorry for or romanticize about the devil. We in our mortality are capricious in our choices. But the angels and the souls of the dead live in eternity. All they know is the eternal now. They are what they are. There is neither the desire nor the opportunity to change. Just as the saints are safely in their heaven forever and ever; so too are the damned fixed in their perdition, lost forever. The fallen angels define something of their angelic natures by their rebellion. They cannot be remade.

3. Does God’s forgiveness only apply to humans, in other words?

Yes, only “living human beings” can avail themselves of God’s mercy. The demons would have none have it. Indeed, they hate the Divine Mercy, itself.

Another question came from Sarah. She writes:

I did the Blasphemy Challenge years ago and regret it now that I’m re-discovering faith. Was it an unforgivable sin?

As long as there is breathe in your body, sin can be forgiven. The atheists who promoted the “challenge” did not understand hyperbole and the correct reading of Scripture. Sin is only unforgiveable when there is no sorrow for sin and repentance. One cannot simultaneously reject God’s mercy and invoke it through contrition. Are you sorry for your sins? The Divine Mercy is ready and desirous of forgiving you.

Filed under: Angels, Catholic, Confession, Devil, Discipleship, Faith, Forgiveness, God, Hell, Religion, Salvation, Sin | Leave a comment »

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 »

Popes Opposed Slavery against Dissenters

Posted on October 1, 2013 by Father Joe

Medallion from 1787 Wedgwood Anti-slavery Campaign

We often think that dissent from the Holy See and the teaching Church is a new phenomenon. However, just as the land of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” silences any reference to God in her schools and promotes the mass murder of the unborn in the womb, so too did our land, and even her Catholic citizens, dissent from papal admonitions against slavery. Catholic churchmen held large parcels of land and like their Protestant fellows, maintained the institution of slavery. The Maryland colony first founded as a haven for Catholics would later facilitate in Baltimore Harbor a central commercial trade in slaves. People were bartered as nothing more than animals or property. Personhood was denied. Human rights were trampled upon. The rights of landowners and the “choice” of European stock immigrants were made preferential over the needs and wants of people kidnapped from the African shores.

Slavery as practiced by the Jews or later by Christians in the ancient world did not compare to it. Slaves were taken from conquered peoples and indentured servants would be used well into the colonial period of America. After a period of service, and even restitution, such slaves were freed. However, we are the ones (European colonialism) who invented perpetual racial slavery– a foul business that could be passed on from generation to generation. Families could be separated. Torture and death could be implemented without any care or worry about censure. Great Britain would renounce slavery many years prior to the Civil War (ended 1865) when the issue would be forced in the United States. Here is the irony. If the Revolutionary War had gone the other way, blacks would have known freedom many generations earlier.

1778 – Slavery outlawed in Scotland.
1807 – British slave trade outlawed.
1833 – All British slaves freed.

Reserving ourselves to the Catholic community, it must be admitted that Catholics often catechized and had their slaves baptized. However, the churches would be segregated and later their schools. It is interesting that Cardinal O’Boyle in Washington, DC would order the desegregation of parochial schools in the 1950′s prior to similar efforts by the federal government. But, past injustice must not be excused because of later enlightenment.

Today many of our people and liberal Catholic theologians and bishops argue for abortion, artificial contraception and active homosexuality. They are the spiritual heirs to the Catholic dissenters on the matter of slavery.

Pope Eugene IV ordered that black slaves be freed in the Canary Islands back in 1435. Columbus was not even born yet! He demanded that “these peoples are to be totally and perpetually free” (Sicut Dudum). Slaveholders who refused the order were excommunicated.

Indians from the New World would be brought to the Pope with the absurd question as to whether or not they were human beings. It was hoped that if the Holy Father deemed them subhuman or animals, that this would legitimate the slave trade and the confiscation of their lands.

Pope Paul III (1537) condemned slavery in the New World, saying, “The Indians and all other peoples … who shall hereafter come to the attention of Christians … are not to be deprived of their liberty and their possessions” (Sublimis Deus). While in regard to the mistreatment of Native Americans, this condemnation of slavery was absolute. Slavers were rebuked as minions of the devil and rationalizations for slavery denounced as without any value. Pastorale Officium imposed automatic excommunication for any who tried to enslave the Indians or take their possessions.

The Holy Office of the Inquisition responded to a question on March 20, 1686 about the practice of enslaving innocent blacks. The Church rejected such actions and argued that they had to be freed and restitution made for the injustice against them.

The later popes spoke with one voice. Pope Gregory XVI (1839) stipulated that no one should “dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or enslave Indians, Blacks, or other such peoples” (In Supremo). He decried the traders for their “sordid gain” and the slave trade as an “inhuman traffic.” Even the defending of such slave trade was ordered forbidden.

Nevertheless, the Catholic bishops met in Baltimore in 1840 and contended that the Pope was only condemning the slave trade, not domestic slavery in the U.S. Is there a similarity between the position of the bishops (for which Bishop John England was a major spokesman) in 1840 and the position of certain Churchmen today in excusing U.S. military intervention around the world or pampering pro-abortion Catholic politicians here at home?

Toward the end of the nineteen century, Pope Leo XIII, the great pope who wrote about the dignity and rights of workers, also deplored the remnants of slavery in Africa and parts of South America.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (a Catholic and former seminarian) argues from natural law that the situation of slavery in America and abortion today are analogous– both strip human beings of personhood, liberty and life.

Where is the prophetic voice? What will future generations, if a culture of life should supplant one of death, think of this generation and her leaders– civil and religious?

This topic is revisited in many ways. It would also regard how we treat the immigrants. Some would invite them to work here but deprive them of the benefits given our citizens. The rise of labor unions and Catholic social teaching responded to the needs and rights of American laborers. Further, what about the sweat shops where workers are exploited so that we might buy cheaper goods? Many of the identical concerns attached to slavery are encountered here.

I would direct readers to Fr. Joel Panzer’s excellent book, The Popes and Slavery. Those who would fault the Church on this question would have to further impugn the apostles and Christ. However, Christianity, while it did not eradicate this social institution, did create a new mindset in its regard. One had to share the faith with servants and treat them in a manner that would recognize them as brothers and sisters in the Lord. There are numerous documents from Popes and churchmen, and even in the journal of the much maligned Christopher Columbus, that spoke of a temporary bondage so that civilization and faith might be shared with the pagans. This is not to make excuses for what we know today as repugnant; but the Church and faith is given to us in human history and culture, not purely as something from outside. Those well-versed in historiography would appreciate what I am trying to say. The Bible and the Church were not privy to an immediate, complete and definitive Christian Anthropology. The truth required time and reflection.

It is untrue that the Church was silent on the evils of certain forms of slavery until after the Civil War. As I said before, American “chattel” or “traditional” slavery would not pass the moral litmus test of the Church. However, there were other forms of servitude. Our country also saw the employment of indentured servants. After the debt was paid or the contract satisfied, the servant was given his freedom. Such would be a form of “slavery,” would find a parallel with prison chain gangs and prisoners of war.

Slavery under pagan Roman law was brutal and stripped the person of basic rights. While Christianity did not eradicate the institution, believers were rightfully conflicted and challenged as to how the institution might be maintained. The treatment of individual slaves necessarily changed and the seed which was the spirit of the Gospel would work toward its eventual abolition. All men were reckoned children of God and brothers and sisters to one another, regardless of social standing or class. Given St. Paul’s command that slaves should obey their masters, it was argued by many authorities that certain forms of slavery or servitude were in accordance with natural law. Distinctions were made about voluntary and involuntary servitude. Immoral acts could not be required of anyone, even a slave. Temporary versus perpetual slavery was debated and delineated. Chattel slavery was condemned for treating the human being as an animal and not respecting personhood. The master was also morally obligated. He had to clothe, shelter, and feed the slave. He had to give him a Christian upbringing. The servant could not be tortured, killed or given inhuman working conditions. The master could not separate families. I am not saying that everyone followed the rules; but there were rules. Indeed, given that the rules for Christians were so often broken, later moralists rejected the whole notion of slavery as justifiable, either with natural law or with the spirit of the Gospel. Slavery had to be abolished if people were to have genuine freedom and a sense of self-respect.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Magisterium, Morality, Politics, Religion, Religious Liberty, Sin, Social Justice, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Priestly Celibacy: Physical & Spiritual Strength

Posted on September 8, 2013 by Father Joe

Primitive man, with the most bare-bones of civilization, seemed to appreciate that there was something singular about virginity or sexual purity. Our ancestors viewed it as giving the person a certain physical and spiritual strength. The knight makes his solitary vigil and prays before a great quest. The oracle or prophetess is untouched by men so that she might have a more intimate communion with the divine. Despite religious error and moral confusion; this peculiar truth about our nature and this sublimation came to light. Later, after the gift of supernatural revelation, the mystery of virginity or celibacy found its place in the religious dispensation for which it was properly made: centered on the Virgin of Nazareth, Mary, and upon her Son, Jesus Christ. All priestly celibacy and religious virginity find their exemplar in them, particularly in our Lord.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Celibacy, Discipleship, Marriage, Priests, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Priestly Celibacy: Making Too Much of Mind Over Matter

Posted on September 7, 2013 by Father Joe

I have rewritten this post several times, struggling to express something that is hard to define. Christian celibacy emphasizes mind and will over attraction, passion, instinct, etc. But none of us exist outside of the human family and all men and women are creatures of God. Both the celibate and the atheist might place too much emphasis upon the mind. It can become a form of idolatry.

Neither an extremist celibacy that hates our biological nature nor an atheistic materialism that denies the spiritual component to our identity should be given the upper hand. It is curious that this latter group might look down upon our physicality, giving the gravity to the mind even as we tamper to improve, manipulate or mechanically duplicate elements of our constitution. Ours is the age of computers and robots. But the minds of men are more than electrical brains and the body a masterpiece beyond that of any fabricated automaton. We might suppose that the mind can do all things; that whatever we can imagine, we can make real. And yet there is also a reductionism: there is a scientific empiricism that impugns other types of truth and which looks upon human genius as something which might be replicated in the mechanical.

We were made for God. This is a truth of our nature. Atheists will sometimes embrace an exaggerated science as a place-holder for where God belongs. They will leap to assumptions or rally around conflicting math or parade man’s growing understanding of both the universe, large and small, or point to man’s technological breakthroughs. Science rests upon all sorts of philosophical presuppositions. It can act as a kind of religion for those who explicitly claim no religion. Science might overreach itself, arguing that no restraints should be placed upon what the mind can conceive, even the horrific. Some critics warn that we are playing God.

I am reminded of the controlling “IT” in Madeleine L’Engle’s A Winkle in Time. A warning, for sure, it portrays a dark disembodied Mind which takes over everything, exerting a powerful telepathic bondage over people. Do not get me wrong, the mind is a wondrous gift. Look at all the technology and breakthroughs that have been made possible by human genius. But we can wrongly regard the gift of the mind as if it is the giver of all gifts. We have fashioned weapons of war that could destroy the planet and all life upon it. Separated from will or love, the mind can be a cruel task master.

Christian celibacy is not simply the victory of the mind over the flesh. If the bestial is close to the animals, a narcissistic mental egoism is reflective of the devil. If thinking heads could be severed from their bodies so that they could devote themselves to mental deliberations unfettered by physical desires, this would not constitute an effort at perfect celibacy. True celibacy is neither the destruction of our sexual faculties nor the negation of our gender-identity. Rather, it takes all that makes us human and makes of it a sacrificial gift to God. Men and women are human beings, not angelic ones.

The fiction that man is a mind distinct and locked in a human body can lead to a terrible separatism. We are our bodies. According to their natures, both angels and men must surrender and conform to God’s loving providence. If the will is poisoned by hatred or by the wrong kind of love, then the mind alone cannot straighten us out. We would be given over to the demonic.

An emphasis upon the mind does not necessarily mean that one is good or holy. The two components of the human soul are also found in angelic beings: intellect and will. But men also have physical bodies and we cannot pretend otherwise. These bodies are liable to original sin, weakness and corruption. They also possess certain positive abilities and attributes which must be acknowledged or integrated so that we might be holistic persons.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Celibacy, Discipleship, Marriage, Priests, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Priestly Celibacy: Off the Radar in our Society

Posted on September 3, 2013 by Father Joe

Although his existence might be denied, it seems obvious to honest believers that the devil is exerting an oppressive influence upon the modern world. There are all sorts of “how to” books on the mechanics of love-making and seduction while spirituality is reduced to a form of self-seeking psychology. Masquerading prayer focuses upon the horizontal instead of the vertical. Prayer becomes wishful thinking or inspirational slogans. If the supernatural is acknowledged, it is in terms of New Age occultism or media fantasies. MTV ran an awards program in 2013 which paraded Miley Cyrus in a song and dance spectacle that was straight out of the routines used at strip joints. She came on to a married man, touched herself and exhibited the most vulgar of sexual simulations. Brushing aside any pretense, she even appeared in the papers wearing horns like a female devil. Until recently she was a Disney teen icon and the role model for 14 year old girls across the nation. I suppose this will set the stage to a side-line modeling career, given that clothing in stores would already have young girls dress like street-walkers. Both in abortion and in a pedophile culture, our society is feeding our children to the beast. People are being corrupted early on so that they might be entirely desensitized to the values and meaning of traditional religious faith.

Taking delight in foul music and lurid images does not help prepare one for pew sitting on Sunday or living in Christian marriage or hearing a call to celibate priesthood. No one can run far or fast enough to escape the rampaging eroticism. It is mainstream and makes the message of the Church seem ridiculous or out of touch with man’s bestial nature. Politicians want marriage for gays at a time when heterosexuals no longer want marriage at all. Celibacy is not even on the radar. There are further efforts, not simply to redefine marriage, but to rewrite the book about personhood and human nature. Callous that we are usurping God’s prerogatives; it is as if secular men do not care. They have made man the measure of all things. It does not seem to matter if anything corresponds to the truth or not. Efforts are underway to create various degrees of marriage contracts. No fault divorce already illustrates how the notion of permanence has been stripped from the definition. It was once a motto that promises were made to be kept; however, today it is truer that promises are made to be broken. Some legislators are seeking to establish marriage contracts with built-in term limits. Such licenses would marry couples for a period of five years. At the end of the five years, the couple could either renew the contract for another term or allow it to expire automatically. Once expired, they would be free to seek out another sexual union or marriage. The Church could never have any part in sordid relationships like this. These tactics will not safeguard marriage or preserve a society that has become fearful of commitment; rather, it would signal its complete collapse.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Celibacy, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, Priests, Religion, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »