Sin | Blogger Priest

The Scandal of Father Bob Pierson

Posted on August 24, 2012 by Father Joe

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, what is your take on Father Bob Pierson?

FATHER JOE:

I had heard of him but had not followed the recent business about his ten minute statement that went viral attacking the initiative supported by the U.S. bishops in opposition to so-called same-sex marriages.

What the priest fails to appreciate is that conscience must be properly informed. Freedom of conscience is not relative moral license. Otherwise, the cause of conscience could be rallied not only for homosexuality but also for other evils like polygamy, bestiality and pederasty. Rather, true liberty comes with an orientation to that which is true and good. Obedience to divine positive law (as revealed in the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) and natural law (as ascertained through the right use of reason to the objective order) makes us truly free. The commission of sin and immoral acts brings not freedom but spiritual bondage.

The priest in the video takes statements from the Church and churchmen out of context, much as a fundamentalist minister might from the Bible to support his claims. Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope, has certainly always taught about the obligation in following conscience; however, he has likewise insisted that homosexuality is a serious sexual disorientation and that the commission of genital acts associated with it are intrinsically immoral.

Notice that he quotes Cardinal Hume who wrote, “Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected.” His quote came in the context of a larger statement in the UK on the homosexual question. While it is certainly permissible to exhibit fraternal and platonic love, as in most friendships, it would be wrong to equate these words with sexual activity and or anal or oral sex. This is another instance where the priest’s remarks are deliberately deceptive. He is well educated and knows what he is doing. This makes him all the more culpable.

Father Pierson is selective in his quotes from the universal catechism. Note that he does not read from CCC #1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Although he attempts to bracket off sacramental marriage in the Church from civilly recognized marriages, such is only a shallow ploy to avoid personal censure and to elicit support from normally orthodox Catholics. The way that society views marriage informs and spills over into how the faithful understand the sacrament of marriage. Indeed, he, himself, is a staff member in an organization where a Protestant minister and an ex-Catholic bless same-sex unions. Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.

The speaker acknowledges that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that homosexuals should not be accepted as candidates for the priesthood. Father Pierson has “come out” that he is a homosexual who opposes Church teaching. We can only hope that he has kept his promise of celibacy. Regardless, he now ridicules the Holy Father and takes a scandalous position against the U.S. bishops and the Marriage Matters campaign. I should add, however, that marriage was threatened long before this issue of so-called same-sex marriage. Marriage was imperiled by growing rates of promiscuity, cohabitation, contraception, adultery, divorce (especially the no-fault variety), and remarriage outside the Church.

Father Pierson had resigned from his post as director of campus ministry after the Vatican officially barred men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from ordination, and because of associated issues in the Church’s faith and moral teaching. “Because I can no longer honestly represent, explain and defend the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, I feel I must resign,” he said. It was also rumored that he was forced out, as he should have been, to avoid further intervention from higher-ups.

His local bishop, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis has strenuously promoted the amendment in opposition to so-called same-sex marriage. He required parishioners in the archdiocese to recite A Prayer for Marriage as part of the General Intercessions at Masses. The U.S. bishops have been very clear in their opposition. Marriage is only genuine if it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Back in 1986, Cardinal Ratzinger, writing for the Vatican, made a statement for correction and support of a letter promulgated by the American bishops. Father Pierson selectively quoted him, but strangely and dishonestly, not this statement which speaks to the question at hand.

Follow this link for the statement:

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder…. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.”

“To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent….”

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

Father Bob Pierson, O.S.B. should be disciplined by his Benedictine order. He has caused scandal and given rise to public dissent from the Church. His faculties to function as a priest should be revoked or curtailed. As a man under ecclesial obedience, he should either publicly recant his dissent or face immediate dismissal. A priest who recommends mortal sin is no longer aligned with Christ. Even if he should be demented or ignorant, he is now on the side of the evil one.

STEPHEN:

Father Joe, I agree with everything you said, albeit except for maybe one small clarification. You write, “Understood in this light, Father Pierson is not only promoting immorality but is taking a heretical position toward one of the seven sacraments of the Church.” Father Bob would disagree as he was careful to differentiate between civil marriages, which are all “outside the Church” and the Church does not recognize anyway and “sacramental” marriages within the Church. Thus, Father Bob would argue that his voting NO on banning same sex “marriage” has nothing to do with Church teaching on sacramental marriage.

I completely agree this priest should be disciplined severely. But will he be? Almost certainly not, and this is the primary reason for our current crisis. Dietrich Von Hildebrand called it the “Lethargy of the Guardians” as far back as the 70’s. We have suffered under the complete unwillingness of ecclesiastical authority since Vatican II to discipline clerics and bishops for egregious sins against doctrine and the faith. What makes it worse is that the same ecclesiastical authority DOES discipline and bring the hammer down for breaking procedural rules/canon laws that have nothing to do with heresy or doctrine. This sets up a practice which lessens the credibility of the bishops who selectively punish lesser offenses while allowing the most egregious publicly scandalous statements from dissenting priests to go unpunished.

I would dare say it is a sin for this man’s bishop or superior not to discipline him in some way, including at minimum, silencing him on this issue to at least minimize further scandal. Will it happen? I’m willing to bet you a shiny nickel it will not. And it is a slap in the face to you and other good priests who would be punished in a second if you did something like deny Holy Communion to a practicing Lesbian Buddhist who introduced you to her “lover” in the sacristy before Mass.

FATHER JOE:

The priest has a track record beyond the video. (I have not directly linked the video, only a strong critique. Those who want to see it can Google the liberal propaganda.)

He recognizes same-sex marriages as valid, both civilly and in the eyes of God. What confuses the issue is that he denies that there has to be concurrence or approbation from the “institutional” Church. I do not have proof, but like some of his Episcopalian liberals, he would love to bless (and maybe has) these unions. He is a regular speaker at gay-lesbian conventions. Remember, too, that priests are only allowed to witness marriages in the U.S. that are also civilly recognized. We function as both civil magistrates and as ministers of the Church. This is not the case in many countries where Catholic couples are required to endure two ceremonies. Such only happens in the U.S. when there is a convalidation.

I should add, that the Church generally recognizes civil marriages between spouses who are not Catholic. If they are legitimately baptized, then there may be a sacramental character as well. Indeed, if there is a divorce and a desire to marry a Catholic, they would have to pursue a formal case annulment with no guarantees of success. Now we will further have to clarify that we do not recognize adulterous marriages or feigned same-sex marriages. I suspect, given the pressure from the Obama administration, that clergy will eventually have to forfeit their civil authority over marriages in order to distinguish the sacramental covenant from the civil legal contract. Once the definition of marriage diverges, we cannot be party to something in which we do not believe. This may already be happening in light of no fault divorce. I would also not be surprised if the government should seek to compel clergy to witness same-sex marriages. The rights of the Church are very much threatened. I pray that our bishops and priests will have the courage to face fines and imprisonment. The latter is quite possible, if the Church’s stand against homosexuality should be judged as a violation of civil rights laws and as hate-speech.

Further, the priest has been involved in the Catholic gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual community. He knows full well the canonical restraints upon Catholics and does not care. All this is to say that the video is deceptive propaganda. He is a liar. Even when he throws out crumbs of feigned respect to Church discipline, they are lies. If you are familiar with his work in Collegeville, then you would know that he also rejects the “proles” (open to human generation) element that is essential to the covenant of marriage. He literally believes that anal intercourse consummates the bond. It is in light of all this that I said that he is a heretic regarding the sacrament of marriage.

In regards to disciplinary measures, they may actually be in the works. Had he been a secular or diocesan priest matters might have been easier. The Benedictines tend to protect their own and have a rather progressive track record in his particular community. One of them (Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB) recently attacked the corrected translation of the Mass at the national Call to Action convention. They also honored the Lesbian Buddhist-Catholic you mentioned and the pro-abortion Catholic Maryland governor was also in attendance. There are a lot of trouble-makers to go around these days.

Orthodox and traditional churchmen have a higher capacity for suffering in that they love the Church and seek to be obedient while the other side really does not care; liberal breakaway groups, as with Archbishop Milingo and Washington’s own Father George Stallings, were also censured and even faced excommunication. In this sense, there is some parallel. I suspect that many in the Church find the contemporary situation almost overwhelming given the pervasive dissent. During this silent and not so silent schism, there is also the worry that the wrong action might lead the ignorant or weak of faith out of the Church. You are right, not all shepherds are to be trusted. But we must also be careful NOT to spread calumny and to hurt good men who are doing their best.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to be hoping that attrition and orthodox replacements among the clergy might hold the answer. My worry is that he, himself, is not a young man. I have found an almost uncharitable delight in how Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the new Ordinary for San Francisco is making the gay establishment squirm and fret. They were pouting the other day because he outlawed drag queens at fundraisers! Really?

Again, do not be fooled. He might say that “…for committed, same-sex couples is not the Sacrament of Matrimony,” but he really does see it as analogous. Remember, sexual activity outside of marriage is a mortal sin. There is nothing equivalent to it. As a priest he knows this. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The Bishops are right on this one. So-called same-sex marriages are indeed a threat to the genuine covenant of marriage, natural or sacramental. There is no loop-hole or escape clause that would allow Catholics to support institutional sodomy.

STEPHEN:

Thanks for the background. In this video he seems to take the stance of…”who cares what the state of MN deems as ‘marriage’ since the Church only recognizes sacramental marriages anyway?” He argues the flip side of religious freedom by stating that the Church should not dictate to the state how it defines “marriage” as civil and Church marriages are separate entities and (in his mind) serve different purposes.

FATHER JOE:

The secular sphere in the public forum would not appreciate marriage as a sacrament. Rather, the point of intersection between the Church and state is the traditional view of marriage as a “natural bond.” The growing division between the Church’s view of marriage, as well as that of natural law, is the reason why someone like Bai Macfarlane has campaigned heavily for traditional marriage and against no fault divorce. Some of her supporters would claim that the conflict or opposition between the civil and ecclesial view of marriage has reached a breaking point, in both the heterosexual orientation and its permanence. They argue that clergy should opt out entirely from working within the system. They suggest that the priest who witnesses any marriage for the state has corrupted (by association) the Catholic understanding. This argument becomes even more defensible if society should formally equate same-sex unions with heterosexual marriages. While priests will not officiate at the feigned marriages of homosexuals and lesbians; will the truth be compromised by our continuing partnership with government in witnessing marriages and signing civil licenses? But what is the alternative? Priests in Europe and Asia often find that in the dual ceremony-system, couples tend to cohabitate if there is any extended duration between the vows before a judge and those before a priest.

The priest errs seriously, by his own admission, for failing to fault the homosexual lifestyle as sinful. Indeed, he seems to praise and to encourage the commission of evil. People of the same gender can be friends but they cannot be spouses. A legal fiction will not make it so.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Family, Homosexuality, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, News, Politics, Priests, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice | 8 Comments »

Parthenogenesis: Babies Without Sex & Males

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Father Joe

It Takes One To Tango
By William Saletan
Sunday, June 10, 2007; Page B02

The article states:

“Still, the process hadn’t been proved in sharks or mammals. And there seemed to be a good reason why. An egg that fertilizes itself makes two identical sets of chromosomes, including sex chromosomes. In birds, snakes and most lizards, two identical sex chromosomes make a male. That allows parthenogenesis to function as a DNA survival mechanism, because an isolated female — close your ears, kids — can produce a son and mate with him. But in sharks and mammals, this wouldn’t work, because two identical sex chromosomes — XX — make a female.”

Virgin birth happens statistically with one in every 10,000,000 human births. The offspring is always a girl, which is further verification of how miraculous was the Christ as a boy. Such was only supernaturally possible.

Goodness, can you imagine the headache and reproach if suddenly a chaste Catholic girl found herself pregnant, without even the benefit of a man and the enjoyment of mortal sin? Who would believe her? As a nun in the cloister she would be forced to surrender her child to adoption. As a layperson, she would face the stigma of being a single mother or racing around to find some noble man willing to marry her and to believe her story, accepting the public blame for a child he did not help conceive.

The article goes on to say:

“Mammals are different. We have a mechanism called imprinting, which foils parthenogenesis. But we’ve also developed an organ that can foil imprinting: the human brain. A few years ago, scientists produced 10 mice, two of them apparently normal, by manipulating a couple of genes so that eggs could fertilize each other. The scientists predicted “even greater improvements in the efficiency of parthenogenetic development in mice,” and they vowed to try next with pigs.”

I am not sure if there are any moral problems with parthenogenetic research in animals. But as for human beings, the notion of taking sperm and genetic DNA material from two females to create a embryo (for research purposes) seems highly suspect and wrong. There are a host of serious questions. One might contend that such efforts at reproduction foil the natural law which requires one man and one woman and the marital act.

However, if parthenogenesis (the fusion of two eggs) already exists in human-beings (although quite rare) then might one argue that enabling such a process is just a promotion of a rare naturally occurrence. Of course, those who terminate pregnancies also claim that they merely do what sometimes happens naturally, miscarriages. My contention would be that a rare statistical event of this sort (parthenogenesis) represents an abnormality and that which is the usual and most frequent instance of reproduction must be considered normative. Further, while human science can change all sorts of parameters, this in itself does not make such research moral. Men can act against their nature and this includes the reduction of human life to a commodity or to a curiosity for medical research and experimentation.

“Will we try parthenogenesis in humans? We already have. Biotech companies are rushing to industrialize it, with one claiming “a dominant patent position in the production of human embryonic stem cells by parthenogenesis.” The stem-cell version of parthenogenesis can’t make babies, but the mouse version might be able to. Theoretically, it would make it possible for two women to create a child together — not a clone, but a mixture of genes from each parent, just like you or me.”

Women might be able to have children together? Given that a number of women only rank the importance of men based upon their abilities to perform from the waist down, this possibility seems to make men largely disposable. Technologies give women devices for various forms of masturbation and now reproductive schemes would grant them “female” offspring. Socially, many women have already made the break, particularly in the households of female single parents. I recall in a liberal minority congregation years ago being told by a woman getting federal and state assistance: “What do I need a man for? I already have my babies!” Men provided entertainment and a stud-service, but nothing else.

Lesbian couples would not have to adopt but could now have children from their own combined DNA. This is a jump from the fusion of two egg cells in a single woman to the forced sharing of genetic material between two. Indeed, there is no scientific reason why genetic information could not be shared from many individuals. Of course, this would quickly represent a new eugenics with designer children. Men could participate, but would be completely optional, unless one wanted a male child.

I see no significant reason why such research should be pursued. The race is not facing immediate extinction.

Filed under: Family, Homosexuality, Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin | 3 Comments »

Heading to the Beaches & Modesty

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Father Joe

We are coming up on the warm months of the year and soon our people will be heading out to the beaches. It is opportune to discuss again how we dress and what we communicate by our outward appearance. As one critic rightly remarked, despite what people wear, it is good to get to know the inner person. Yes, but of course, there are many people we will never really know personally. Models in magazines and catalogues would be an example. The image may be all that we will ever encounter. Are they not saying something about their own self-respect (or lack thereof) by how they appear and how they allow themselves to be used? Strangers on a beach would be another such example. Further, visual markers have a certain staying power. We can say that dress (or undress) does not matter; but the truth is that it matters a great deal.

Girl watching on the beach is a particularly volatile issue. People get mad or roll their eyes when I offer criticism. It would be one thing if the men looked upon the women as one might a Michelangelo masterpiece, giving praise to God for the wonders of his creation and such beauty. However, men are not angels, and not infrequently, the sight of scantily clothed women is an occasion for sin— fantasies that lead to adultery in the heart, self-pollution, casual sex outside of marriage and sometimes crime. The question also arises as to what is or is not pornographic. Women would probably be better covered by ordinary underwear than by many styles of swimwear. Are men generally comfortable with showing off their wives, girlfriends and daughters in skimpy attire?

Of course, the clothing of the body is only one element to modesty. It includes dress, posture, speech, etc. Young women were once taught etiquette in such things. I can still recall a teacher talking to girls in my grammar school class about how to sit, with legs crossed. The religious sisters tell me that they were always at the girls about rolling up their skirts to their school uniforms. Even certain hair styles were regarded as somewhat provocative, although I never really understood this element. It finds some reference in Scripture and is the rationale behind the Catholic mantilla, the nun’s veil and the Islamic head covering. As I understand it, in Church circles, a woman’s hair-covering at Mass was to obscure her beauty sufficiently so that men might not be distracted from Eucharistic worship. It was also done as an ancient custom to honor God. However, I have never been one to find hair overtly sexual and as a serious threat to propriety. Maybe this is different for others?

The criticism might be offered that I have targeted the responsibility of women to be modest and have omitted men. I think there is a different psychology here. Both men and women are sexual beings, but we are not wired the same. While it is often wildly exaggerated, most men do not need much of a catalyst to think about sexual things. One girl told me that she liked to flirt but not to worry because she always stopped before she got the boys’ motors running. I quickly explained, “Sorry, but you need to know the boys’ motors are ALWAYS running!” It is no secret that pornography and the sex industry focus more heavily upon the female form than the male. In any case, presuppositions and possible stereotypes aside, men are also called to be chaste and modest. Tight fitting clothes or baggy pants that seem to be falling off are problematical. Speedo swim-shorts for men strike me also as unsightly and vulgar. Preoccupations with men’s butts can be for women a violation of the custody of the eyes. The groin-grasping dance of the late Michael Jackson would be evidence of an immodest gesture from men. Men and women must work together to preserve modesty and the many wonderful values which flow from it.

I will save the issue of how people dress when going to church for another day, after I take another blood pressure pill.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Modesty, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 5 Comments »

Impotence & Marriage

Posted on March 18, 2012 by Father Joe

Over the years I have received a number of questions about disabilities and marriage. I am always reminded about one of my first ministerial tasks at the Washington Hospital Center in the District of Columbia. A 22 year old marine had experienced a training accident which left him a paraplegic. His young and very attractive fiancée was ever at his bedside, holding a hand which could no longer feel hers. He wanted to die. Certainly he did not want to tie her down to a man the doctors insisted would always be an invalid. Her response was to remain by his side and to offer tears of intercession for his pain and their lost dreams. Many years have passed since our encounter, and I am still unsure what might best be said in such a situation. It was not a time to come down on their hopes with a debate about the laws of nature and of the Church. I shared their space, offered them prayers and what consolation I could muster, but I could not take away the depths of their loss.

The marital act open to new life and seeking the good of the beloved is a sign and seal of the sacrament. The marriage covenant is consummated and renewed by it. Cognizant of our nature as bodily persons, the Church is also realistic and pragmatic enough to realize that marriages which shortchange sexual intimacy often fuel the fires of infidelity and alienation. The question here is not simply one of disability, but of the type of disability. Blindness, deafness, loss of certain limbs, etc. pose no such impediment to marriage. Even infertility does not negate the right of marriage if no deceit is present when the vows are made. However, can a person mentally deranged or seriously incompetent get married? No, not if they lack a conscious awareness of the nature and obligations of marriage. A paralyzed person, might be fully aware of the responsibilities of marriage, but be incapable of fulfilling them. The law of the Church in such cases is simply a reflection of the natural law. Having said this, once consummated, a tragic accident of such a nature would not abrogate the bond. The initial consummation, uncoerced and unimpeded by contraception, makes a sacramental marriage indissoluble.

What recourse would a couple have in getting married if one of the members is paralyzed from the neck or even from the waist down? Depending on the situation, the bishop himself may not be at liberty to grant a dispensation for marriage. This would especially be the case if there is no real possibility of recovery and consummation of the bond. Having said this, a very grave concern of the Church would be the use of oral sex as an attempted substitute for the marital act. While permissible in the old morals manuals as a precursor to intercourse, it cannot be sought as an ends unto itself. It falls on many of the same arguments as masturbation and homosexual interactions. Moving on, it is possible that some degree of medication and therapy might restore enough function to fulfill the marital act. In such a case, marriage could be permitted. Further, modern technologies have made available various pump mechanisms (requiring surgery) which would make possible an erection. If there is some transmission of seminal fluid, then again, marriage might very well be permitted. This position is not a reduction of the human person to a gross physicalism but the recognition that our living bodies, inextricable animated by souls, are the real expressions of our identity. Unless forsaken for the kingdom, the needs of these personal bodies– our very selves– cannot be underestimated. Having said all this, there is still another avenue a couple might pursue, although a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage. They could live their lives promising perpetual virginity along the lines of the Virgin Mary and the good St. Joseph.

Whatever a couple in such a fix decides to do, they will definitely know the Cross. It is my hope that the Church will always show them the redemptive value of joining our sufferings to the passion of Christ. What this world takes away, the next will restore. What this world leaves us, we can utilize for the coming of the next.

Discussion

SIMON:

Father, this is an interesting summary, and thank you for writing and posting. Here is my question. I have been married for almost 20 years. For the past 7, I have suffered from impotence due to diabetes. My wife and I were blessed with 4 children before the impotence occurred, and were always open to children in our marriage. Since becoming impotent, I have respected my wife’s opinion that we are to remain chaste from now on. Although I have tried all available impotence remedies, none work for us. I would never ask her to do anything she is uncomfortable with, but I cannot grasp how we are forbidden from being intimate even though we can no longer have intercourse. I understand that intercourse is meant to be both procreative and unitive. Impotency has removed our ability to be procreative, but why are we no longer allowed to be unitive, not through intercourse (which we would gladly do if it were at all possible), but through oral or digital stimulation? In the case of sterility, couples are encouraged to be unitive without being able to be procreative. This identification of intercourse as the only unitive act for couples suffering from the heartbreak of impotency pains me. My wife cries about the loss of intimacy. How can this be right? Must we lie together every night and never experience any physical love again? At least a priest’s or homosexual’s decision to remain celibate isn’t constantly tested every night by having the object of their desire lying right next to them. They can remove all “near occasions of sin.” Short of moving out of the marital bed, further removing some of the marital intimacy, I have no recourse to lessen the constant reminder and struggle to understand why the Church deems this to be better for us. It does help to get this off my chest. I do not feel comfortable discussing this with anyone.

FATHER JOE:

Dear Simon, I am sorry for the frustration both you and your wife feel. If you have not already, the problem of impotency might be something better discussed with a professional counselor sympathetic to Catholic teaching. When I discuss generalities, it can come across as cold. Certainly, as a celibate priest, I can in no way appreciate the full personal dynamics of such a situation. You are right; there is a vast difference between a man who sleeps alone and one who rests in bed with the female object of his desire and affection.

I am unable to give you the answer or clarification I know you wish to hear. Although I suppose given the nature of your bond, the moral gravity of an illicit act of affection might be lessened.

While impotency prior to a marriage is an impediment, it has no appreciable effect upon the sacrament afterwards, given that there has been consummation, not to mention, children.

While you suggest a parallel with the question of potency without fertility, the pivotal difference is that the mechanics of the marital act remain the same. It is still the type of act that naturally can result in children and to which the male and female bodies complement each other. Such cannot be said where male potency has been compromised and oral or digital manipulation is pursued.

The Church’s understanding of marital intimacy is more than sexual excitement and physical intimacy. It is the bonding of flesh and souls, with one another and with Jesus. Oral sex and digital manipulation might arguably be closer to masturbation than to the marital act. And while there might be some legitimacy when practiced in tandem with the marital act, the Church resists any complete substitution.

However, if you disagree, I would simply suggest that you regularly bring the matter up in confession, out of respect for Church teaching, and do the best you can to live the Christian life. God knows you love each other and any transgressions from weakness and longing between a husband and wife in such a situation would seem to be small matters to be kept between yourselves and your confessor. It may happen one day that some new therapy or medication may cure the problem. We cannot know the future and should struggle to do the best we can in the present.

There are priests out there who might say, go ahead do what you want, it does not matter. But I cannot in good conscience do that. What I can say is do not despair and know that God is infinitely forgiving and understands how unfair and difficult life can become. If we trip from time to time, he will help pick us up.

Finally, there are some wonderful ways to express intimacy that might restore the romantic elements you both knew when dating and in courtship. Candy and flowers always go a long way. Ballroom dancing is making a come-back. Picnics and boat rides are good. Holding each other tight on a porch swing and sharing lots of hugs and kisses is not so bad either… or so I am told. As spouses you can cuddle and flirt and if things get a little out of hand, well God called you together as lovers and in the heat of passion the boundaries might become blurred on occasion.

Trust each other.
Keep faith in God and in his mercy.
Respect the teachings of the Church.
I will be praying for you both.

ROBERT:

Dear Father Joe, I am a young Catholic man (age 24) engaged to be married and have been researching for personal interest “Josephite Marriage” or “White Marriage.”

As I understand it, under Canon Law, a couple where one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.

As I understand it, what a couple exchange in the marriage vows is the right to demand the marital debt from one another (if the request is reasonable and opportune).

In a “virginal marriage” this right is not used by the mutual consent of the couple. This right is mutually given up for the “sake of the kingdom.”

In a “virginal marriage” there is a mutual agreement not to use a right exchanged (the right to the marital debt).

In an antecedently and perpetually impotent couple, the right to the marital debt cannot be exchanged. Hence, there can be no marriage. One cannot exchange what one does not have.

Hence (from what I’ve gathered on the internet), no marriage can take place between a couple in which one or both partners are antecedently and perpetually impotent not even if the non-impotent party agrees to live a virginal marriage. God bless.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, Robert, you are quite right that canon law stipulates that “a couple in which one of the partners is antecedently and perpetually impotent may not contract any marriage.” Actually, Canon 1084 §1 says that it “invalidates the marriage.”

Note, however, that my post was also very tentative, saying that virginal marriage was a course that such a couple “MIGHT pursue” and that “a sexual dysfunction MIGHT be coercive.” I know the prohibition seems absolute on paper, but I have known cases where exceptions were made, particularly if the dysfunction were not absolute.

While confidentiality does not allow me to reveal many details, I can say this much:

1. Such cases were referred to the local bishop.

2. Only after a canonical, medical and pastoral investigation were decisions made.

3. Bishops themselves (in contact with Rome) gave dispensations from the canonical impediment (somewhat controversial because a few of us thought it might be elevating a juridical process over natural law) or argued that Canon 1084 §2 took precedence.

4. Both partners had to make a faith profession and renounce any and all sexual activity for the sake of the kingdom. It was understood, however, that if the problem of impotence should later find medical resolution, that the bishop had the authority to release them from their vowed celibacy.

5. A theoretical conjecture was noted whereby future medical discoveries might restore the partner’s lost sexual capacity.

6. A rather progressive interpretation was given to this law: “If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null” (Canon 1084 §2 ).

When bishops give such a dispensation and/or ruling, and the news goes public, as you might suspect, there is a lot of controversy. This is particularly so because not all bishops would grant such permission anyway. Speaking as a mere parish priest, I have serious reservations about it, myself.

One case that I recall revolved around the fact that the woman was the paralyzed man’s principal caregiver as well as his best friend. It was also taken into consideration that they were engaged before the accident. Being devout Catholics they wanted to be together, but did not want to commit the scandal of cohabitation outside of marriage. I heard of another case, where a couple already had a child out of wedlock (before the incident that caused paralysis), and they wanted to provide a home with both a father and a mother.

The situation and question can became increasingly complicated, as you can see.

Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.

The situation of allowing impotent men to marry, for the male is where the gravity rests in our theology, is a serious risk on many levels. People are sexual beings. A young woman married to a paralyzed man would naturally desire sexual congress with her husband; the real danger exists that improper acts might be committed and even adultery. The impotent and/or paralyzed man is also taking a terrible chance, as he may find himself emotionally frustrated at not being able to fulfill his marital duty toward his spouse. They might also commit the sin of invitro-fertilization after harvesting sperm cells. In the past, paralyzed people were almost always refused the marriage rite; however, medical discoveries have made people increasingly optimistic about recovery of some sensation and mobility. I am not sure yet if this current optimism is well enough founded on hard science to recommend liberality regarding impotence and freedom to marriage. If impotence is not reversed, the healthy spouse could readily leave the marriage and seek an annulment on the grounds that there was no consummation. Such cases go to Rome. In any case, this leaves the handicapped man open to abandonment.

Aquinas admitted that sexual copulation was not essential to marriage, thus why virginal marriages are even possible; however, he was quick to assert that marriage gives both spouses the natural right over the other spouse’s body for the purpose of the marital act. A permanently paralyzed and/or impotent man cannot consummate the bond, either in actuality or potency. Nevertheless, the female spouse has a right to that unitive act that furthers both fidelity and procreation.

It should be added that if a man is injured (becoming paralyzed and/or impotent) after marriage and its consummation with the marital act, the couple remain married and must endure with faithfulness and courage the plight that has come to them.

DON:

Please, someone tell me this particular column is a cruel joke, kind of like a news story from the Onion website.

FATHER JOE:

About a tragic subject, for sure, but this page is entirely serious.

MARC:

Father Joe, good reasoning in your discussion; my prostate removal has left me not only with ED but also with the absence of seminal fluid. Periodically, I use injections for an erection which “sometimes” is shared with my wife depending on timing, etc. When this happens, it is used to a good moral use well within Church guidelines. But on many other occasions, there is neither erection nor fluid. My wife and I feel that we need to keep our intimacy strong or the relationship will fade leaving both of us blind to each other’s love. Is oral not an option at our age of 64 and married 41 years? Thank you and confused.

FATHER JOE:

Sexual expression and/or the marital act are precious gifts to married couples. However, if the marital act should become difficult or impossible, then the couple should explore chaste forms of affection and signs of love, as with the initial courtship. Dinner and a movie, snuggling on the couch, holding hands and taking walks, kisses and cuddling, etc. You also have your memories.

LINDA:

I have been told by a priest that artificial insemination is allowed if one’s spouse is sterile by deformity (but not impotent) and that to alleviate the “frustration” of the woman to bear a child of her womb, the Church would not reject this couple or child. Is there precedent for this?

FATHER JOE:

What the priest told you is not true. Artificial insemination is forbidden without exception by the Church. The reasoning is that every human being should come into existence through the marital act. There can be no third party intervention in the act of bonding and mutual surrender of the spouses to each other and to divine providence. There is a precise act that God has instituted for the creation of human beings. Artificial insemination and IVF can create the mentality that children are commodities. Further, Christianity teaches that children are a gift from God; no one has a RIGHT as such to a child.

If a couple violate moral law and defy the Church, the Church would not reject the couple and/or the child. The child is innocent and cannot be faulted for the misbehavior of parents, no matter whether it be through illicit fertilization procedures or acts of rape or incest. The parents can know absolution if they express some small degree of sorrow and subsequent respect for Church authority.

MORGAN:

Father Joe, I met my wife in Medugorje. We wrote letters to each other over the years and fell in love. One day she said to me over the phone, “When you find out about me, you will have the choice to come or go.” I didn’t know then what it meant. I had many guesses in my mind. But none were reasonable. Then one night while in prayer I heard what I believe was the Lord. He told me what was wrong with her and asked me if I would love her. I said yes. A few moments later the phone rang and it was her. I told her what was wrong and she was surprised. I also told her that I would love her.

My wife had cancer when she was 2 years old. They took her uterus, vagina and eggs. Everything was taken leaving a scar and a clitoris. There is no penetration.

I went to Medugorje with her again and asked a priest if marrying her was the right choice despite her impotency. He said we could be together as long as we lived as the angels do.

She further went and talked to her local bishop who said marriage in the church was not possible, but we could do a legal marriage to be together so long as we live chastely.

The day we got married, it was not our intention. It was the only day my sister could organize with the judge, April 14, 2006— Good Friday of that year.

We have lived together for 3 years now. My wife does have feeling in her clitoris and I am a fully capable male. If we did do anything, would it be wrong for us to do? Can we get married in the Catholic Church? If not, do we seek this Virginal Marriage from our local bishop and would it constitute as a marriage inside the church?

Also, we ran into a priest who said our legal marriage was wrong, we couldn’t adopt kids, and he tried to make my wife promise we would separate after some time. He said he wouldn’t give her absolution in confession unless she promised to do so. She did not promise it. She came to me in tears.

I love my wife. She has stuck with me through a war, taken care of me, and we both share a cross. I couldn’t see myself with anyone else. Do I need to seek a miracle and if so, how do I do that?

FATHER JOE:

I would suggest that you seek out someone in the diocesan chancery and/or authorities in Catholic medical ethics. Infertility would not prevent marriage. The issue is impotency and the marital act. There are many points here which are unique to your case and would need to be explored by experts, both in medicine and in Church law. I can only speculate, but would it be possible to surgically refashion a type of female genitalia for her? I know there have been cases of men, particularly those with paralysis, who have had pumps surgically inserted to make the marital act possible. Oral and anal sex are disapproved as beneath human dignity and do not constitute consummation of the bond. A virginal relationship would pose no particular problem, but a Catholic marriage respecting sexual intimacy poses important hurdles for you both. Vowed virginal marriages in the Church are fairly rare, and usually require that a couple denounces vaginal sex, not that they are incapable of it.

I am sorry for the suffering you both endure and regret that you feel hurt by the hard counsel of a brother priest. I wish I had more answers for you or those you so desperately want to hear. Even if you should be asked to refrain from Holy Communion, go to Mass each Sunday and pray daily with each other. Yours are not sins of malice. Your struggle is with love, affection and the frailty of the human condition. You will both remain in my prayers.

FRANK:

Father Joe, re: Josephite Marriage, and your previous discussion of it, I fail to understand just what kind of union results from the exchange of promises, (of chastity and fidelity), in a marriage in which one of the principals is irreversibly impotent. Is there a real covenant? One which is just as binding civilly and religiously as in a normal marriage? Can’t understand why the healthy party in such cases can’t just, willy nilly, choose to walk away, without considering the medium of divorce or annulment.

FATHER JOE:

I did say that “a sexual dysfunction might be coercive in its regard– virginal marriage,” meaning that such an alternative would be problematical. The post was originally written some time back and I am not sure I meant a “Josephite marriage,” probably just an analogous spiritual friendship. A true Josephite marriage would imply that a couple freely opted not to exercise their genital prerogatives. Impotence means there is no choice, no potential for the marital act.

LAURA:

I came across this post today when trying to look into this issue as it has been bothering me. I may be wrong, but I thought that in the case of a “properly functioning” couple, John Paul II drew a distinction between oral sex for men and women. As I understand the teaching, since the female orgasm has nothing to do with conception, oral stimulation of the woman is permitted even if not in conjunction with a completed act of intercourse. At least that’s how I have had the teaching explained to me. If that’s the case, I still can’t wrap my head around why, for a couple for whom conception is impossible (i.e. a couple where one partner is impotent), the teaching would be any different. In other words, I didn’t think the “no oral sex without completed act of intercourse” rule was about conception and being open to life, not about mechanics of the act. If the couple would be open to life but for the impotence, I’m not sure how oral sex for this couple is different than the permissible oral sex on a woman in a normal-functioning couple.

FATHER JOE:

I do not recall the late pope making any such distinction that would permit female masturbation. The marital act is defined as that sexual act which is the type of act that is open to the transmission of human life. Pleasure for both men and women is an enticement for intercourse that is required for the propagation of the species. It is also an ingredient in the fidelity of the spouses. While the old moral manuals permitted a certain level of foreplay to facilitate the marital act, as well as manipulation of the female if the male climaxed too quickly, such stimulation apart from intercourse was frowned upon. As far as I know, nothing has changed. I suspect someone taught you wrong. Where is Pope John Paul II supposed to have said otherwise? The late pope gave an emphasis upon spousal fidelity that was sometimes eclipsed by procreation in Catholic thinking; but nothing in his theology of the body overturned basic morality.

LAURA:

I went back and looked at what I had read, and I suppose you are right that oral sex on a woman is not permitted in and of itself. But here is what I read (by Christopher West) that is still not quite what you are saying:

“The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).”

FATHER JOE:

Yes, he is correct. I have not written anything which contradicts this. Onanism is still a sin, no matter whether alone or with a partner. Strictly speaking, this regards the male “spilling the seed.” Foreplay that includes male climax is not foreplay. Rather, it has wrongly been substituted for the marital act. Similarly, after intercourse, the manipulation of the female by the husband so that she might climax has been judged as lawful by moralists.

LAURA:

I recognize that Christopher West is not an official authority in the Church, but if what he’s saying is true, while I’m wrong that female stimulation is permitted as an isolated act, it would appear that oral sex as foreplay is not “frowned upon” as you say, nor is some female stimulation prohibited even after sex (which does not confine it just to the realm of “foreplay”). This is also consistent with what is written in the book “Holy Sex,” written by a number of modern Catholic theologians.

FATHER JOE:

What West writes is okay, however, your commentary is not clear. Foreplay is only frowned upon if the male climaxes without true intercourse. But, as I said, then it is not foreplay but simply oral sex or masturbation. Give me the quote where I am wrong and I will correct it. Peace!

DAVID:

Are implants to treat impotence banned by Church teaching where there are no other alternative treatments to achieve a valid marriage?

FATHER JOE:

Implants, as such, are not banned.

DAVID:

Are surgically implanted pumps allowed as a means of overcoming impotence?

FATHER JOE:

It is a tricky and somewhat controversial business. Evidently bishops will sometimes give a dispensation for marriage after the implantation of such pumps. The argument is that with this intervention the impotence is no longer absolute. I am not sure if all bishops are happy with such a compromise. Particularly in cases of paralysis, it might make the mechanics possible, but the man would still not feel anything. How would this affect their mutual self-donation and bonding in the marital act? There may be little other recourse after marriage. If paralysis or injury brought about such serious impotence in a man prior to marriage, I would probably advise a reconsideration altogether. People are not machines and the flesh is weak. My perspective might seem cold, heartless and cynical. I do not intend to come across this way. But I have seen too many relationships of this sort, between a woman and impotent man, fall apart with the most devastating consequences. Could not such men settle for simple and chaste friendships?

EILEEN:

My question is not related directly to this topic, but I have been searching for an answer and cannot find it, so figured I’d try here.

Thirteen years ago, upon learning that I was pregnant with our sixth child, my husband, against my wishes, had a vasectomy. This nearly broke our marriage and it took a long time to recover. (He was not raised Catholic and is a convert who struggles with the ban on contraceptives.)

Since that time, there have been a few occasions (very few) where during sexual activity he has engaged in self-stimulation along with the mutual activity. Usually, this all ultimately ends up with penetration taking place and the completion of the sex act as it should; but on a couple of occasions, he has ejaculated outside of [the body].

As the ejacula no longer carries sperm, and as the intent at the beginning of the sexual activity was to complete internally, is this a mortal sin?

FATHER JOE:

First, the vasectomy was wrong and sinful for several reasons. It is regarded as a mutilation of the human person and the generative powers. It reflects a contraceptive mentality wherein the openness to human life which is intrinsic to the marital act is spurned. Upon repentance, and where possible, the Church would also recommend repair of the damaged faculties.

Second, there may have been emotional healing, but an important element of the sacramental reality of your marital covenant remained wounded.

Third, given the vasectomy, it would seem that the matter of a ban upon artificial contraceptives would be a “personally” mute point. He has embraced perpetual infertility over periodic sterility. Many lifelong Catholics also dissent upon this matter. He may have been a convert, but did he “convert” enough?

Fourth, while an element of manipulation may be understood as foreplay and preparation for the marital act; such activities must not be pursued in themselves or seen as independent. Human beings are not animals and the marital act should not be reduced to cold mechanics. It is ideally a self-donation and surrender to the beloved. While accidents do happen, we should still be watchful against the sin of Onanism.

Fifth, the intention behind the actions that surround the marital act do have moral weight. However, the fact that the ejacula is deficient or void of sperm does not matter in this situation of self-manipulation or arousal outside the marital act.

JAN:

Erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment has evolved a lot from traditional times. Earlier this problem was believed to be caused by psychological factors only, but now we know better, so have the treatments.

ROSIE:

What do you do when you have been married for nearly 9 years and your husband has never been able to properly [fulfill the marital act]? The cause being diabetes but you didn’t know this until recently. He is able to bring you to climax [through manipulation] but you find this, although better than nothing, very much unsatisfactory. Also you can’t talk about how you feel with him. Also facing the temptation of other males on the scene for which intercourse would be very easy. Is this a real marriage or should it be annulled?

FATHER JOE:

Dear Rosie, I am far from an authority upon such issues and this is a somewhat delicate question. However, there are a few points I would like to note:

First, as a married couple you should be able to dialogue with your spouse about your personal needs in this relationship. It might be hard, but nothing can be done to help the situation unless you work together.

Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.

Third, I would urge you to avoid both actual temptation and fantasies toward adultery. Take the matter of divorce and annulment off the table. You have been married for almost a decade. Fight for your marriage and love one another, “for better or for worse” until death do you part.

Fourth, do not be afraid to work with a doctor who might be able to help you both. Not all physical problems can be overcome, but sometimes situations can be much improved. Peace!

ALLIE:

I have a question. You said, “Somewhat as an aside, the whole question of impotence and how it is defined often comes up. Some men resort to implants and pumps so that they can have an erection. While this permits them to have sexual intercourse, this does not mean that they have much if anything in the way of sexual pleasure or sensation because of it. Just the thought of such extremes leaves me almost speechless.”

And later, you suggested that the woman who had surgery for cancer at age 2 that removed her vagina (and uterus, and ovaries), have surgery to create an artificial vagina. Can you help me understand Church law regarding these types of surgeries? And why have you tied male sexual pleasure as a necessity of the marital act? Especially since, as you pointed out, “Second, your marriage should go deeper than issues like pleasure in the mutual act. It is important, but you have both entered into a covenant where sacrifices will have to be made.”

It seems to me that whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple should be permissible, whether that is allowing impotent couples to come together in intimacy of their own choosing or allowing couples to marry who know that what they currently have in a physical relationship (i.e., paraplegics, etc.) is all they can lawfully have. I should think that the binding thread here is LOVE. Having read the entire page today, it seems to me that the unlawful marriage of the couple from Medjugorie is far more of a loving union than Rosie’s marriage of almost a decade. My heart goes out to all the couples here. You are struggling with much. And I am struggling to understand myself.

FATHER JOE:

The marital act is defined by the Church in light of natural law. Other forms of intimacy and/or sexual congress have neither the capacity to consummate the marital covenant nor any significant degree of fecundity. The general subjective experience (which often includes some degree of pleasure) furthers the good of fidelity between spouses. My emphasis is not directly upon pleasure but upon the capacity of a couple to engage in non-contraceptive sexual intercourse as a requirement for marriage.

As for the reconstruction of genitalia, the morality hinges upon the repair of something impaired, as through accident or cancer. Such repair is not always possible. Further, no such reconstruction should seek to alter the external gender in contradiction to that given at birth and in the DNA. The Church opposes so-called sex-change operations and views such measures in terms of self-mutilation and the unlawful or immoral damaging of physical faculties.

You would accept as legitimate “whatever couples decide upon as being mutually agreeable to bind them together as a couple.” However, by extension, this is also the erroneous argument posed by homosexuals seeking the recognition of their unions as a form of marriage. The problem is that the marital act between a man and woman, defined as non-contraceptive vaginal intercourse, allows for no substitutions. One can feign the act, either through choice or because the actual act is impossible, but such neither consummates nor renews the marital covenant. Instead of a virtuous act which brings grace, there would be the commission of sin instead. That is the Catholic view, again based upon divine positive law and especially natural law. Love and friendship are indeed important. But one can have both outside of sexual relationships. Indeed, as a celibate priest, I have dedicated my life to the love of God and to the service of his people. Marriage is not the only sacrament of love. The ordination of a priest is a sacrament of love. Indeed, our common baptism into the family of God is the first and most basic sacrament of love. The right to marriage is not absolute. If it were, we would have to pass out spouses just as we distribute bread to the hungry. It does not work that way.

Filed under: Adultery, Catholic, Celibacy, Contraception, Discipleship, Marriage, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 33 Comments »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #5 (Discussion)

Posted on March 14, 2012 by Father Joe

Continuation of the Discussion on Homosexuality

This is the fifth installment in this extended dialogue about homosexuality. I must warn the reader that not everyone is polite and few are timid about remarks. The majority express a strong negativity to the disorientation. Unfortunately, one of its strongest proponents was an avowed atheist. I was hoping that we might more deeply explore how some try to reconcile such a lifestyle with a professed Christian faith. The atheist rejects Christian morals because the Bible is just another book to him. Natural law often fails because he rejects intelligent design and order. The active homosexual person who tries to be a Christian would face serious quandaries regarding the Scriptural prohibitions. Does he argue that the Bible is not inerrant and fully inspired? Does he contend that certain teachings are prejudiced and so historically and culturally situated that they no longer speak to us? Would he contend that just as slavery was tolerated, core Scriptural values would override and come to the fore with later reflection about homosexuality? Might such dissenters merely ignore parts of the Bible and our sacred tradition, giving greater gravity to secular humanism and present-day social engineering? These questions really did not arise in this conversation.

DURCK:

Homosexuals are imposing their standards upon me and my children by claiming that such a lifestyle is acceptable and by telling my children that they, too, can live the gay lifestyle. Yes, the gay agenda is to force (yes, force) society to proclaim homosexual and lesbian unions as legitimate and valid. Absolutely not! All of you can talk until you’re blue in the face— I’m not buying any of it.

And when gay couples adopt children, they’re bringing yet a third party into their madness.

Who do any of you think you’re kidding?

MICHAEL:

Durck— you’re right. This is an abuse of the English language. We call them homosexual lifestyles right? Let’s call them what they really are. They’re death styles.

When I was young, my parents took our family for a Sunday ride through historic Bucks County, Pennsylvania. We drove through a town called New Hope. That was the first time in my life that I had witnessed two men kissing each other in public. One of the men was wearing a full length mink coat and then exposed himself to the other man. What stands out the most in my mind was the negative reactions of my parents. This left an indelible impression upon me for the rest of my life. My conscience told me how sick and how wrong that was. I’m sure that my late father, given the chance, would have kicked the crap out of them, only because his children were there.

A gay couple should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child either. Children need both a mother (female) and a father (male).

We have to fight today to keep normal things normal. It isn’t natural or normal for two people of the same sex to be physically attracted to each other. GET SOME HELP.

MORSE:

So Michael, when I see stories of Christians and Catholics abusing children, should I assume that every Christian and Catholic is a child abuser?

Perhaps Christians and Catholics should NEVER, EVER be allowed to adopt a child. Because of COURSE they’re ALL just horrible child molesters. [sarcasm]

FATHER JOE:

Okay, everybody let us try to place nice.

MORSE:

Why? I’m using his logic. Because two men were once lurid in public, he is casting down judgment on all homosexuals. Why should I not do the same to Christians?

FATHER JOE:

It may be that he could have better made his case. Remember, Christians presume that the believer who lives out his faith is properly disposed to virtue. By contrast, active homosexuality would undermine one’s moral standing, even if discrete. It is still sinful. While there are hypocritical Christians, there are also many homosexuals who reinforce the stereotype of low morals by public acts of lewdness and dissent.

DURCK:

Glad you agree, Michael. I’m sure your late father was incensed that his young son had to witness such a spectacle, but, seeing you today, he would have no cause to worry of any negative effect that sight may have had on you.

My heart breaks for children, especially today— the smut and the insanity they’re subjected to is absolutely criminal. What infuriates me the most is the brainwashing that’s imposed upon them while they’re still so vulnerable.

I know that homosexuals and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and that we should treat them respectfully, but I’m finding the task of loving them increasingly more difficult.

LARA:

See what I mean, Michael, that “anger within?” Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life, so since they’ve chosen not to, they presume the right to clobber us for our every foible. Speaking of straining on gnats and swallowing camels…

MICHAEL:

Morse— for your info, neither Christians and Catholics, nor priests hold a monopoly on child abuse and pedophilia. That’s what deceived and deluded people try very hard to believe.

You can also thank Almighty God that you weren’t raised by either two males or two females, or were you? If I struck a nerve with you GOOD!

Gay is not OK. If you’re a “CHRISTIAN” then you’ll agree because homosexuality in the site of God is an ABOMINATION.

Be it known that I DON’T HATE HOMOSEXUALS! I LOVE THEM BECAUSE GOD DOES. What I hate is sinful behavior, especially in public and in clear view of innocent children.

Dear Lara, they don’t have any defense. That’s why they’re angry.

If their biological parents never came together in that most sacred act, they wouldn’t be here defending their abnormal and sinful behavior.

MORSE:

Christians who live out their faith are virtuous? Well, the majority of homosexuals are also virtuous. You happen to think you have a monopoly on virtue. The rest of the world disagrees with you.

“Never a legit defense; always the offensive attack because they don’t have to live a Christian life.”

No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so. A book saying something does not make it so.

FATHER JOE:

Morse, I am using the word “virtue” or “virtuous” not simply in reference to natural virtues but that which is brought about by grace and is supernatural. I would hardly think an atheist could tell me who has and has not been so favored by God, particularly since you deny his existence. How often have I spoken about Catholics as not only a people of “the Book” (the Scriptures) but of a rational faith, too?

Homosexual acts also violate the natural law.

LARA:

The “rest of the world” disagrees with Father Joe?

Oh, please. That’s quite a hopeful stretch of the imagination, I must say, and not only painfully (for you) inaccurate, but a bold-written lie.

The Roman Catholic Church and her priests show more genuine, loving compassion toward you as homosexuals and lesbians than any other group on earth, and even their love you reject and ridicule. Why? Because they refuse, again, out of love for you— to pat you on your head and tell you, “There, there, my child, live as you please with a clear conscience…”

And you think the left cares for you? No, they’re using you, that’s why they couldn’t care less how you live.

“No legit defense? How about the one I have repeated over and over…there is no good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral— none. All you have is a book that says so.” No, there isn’t a good reason for homosexuality to be looked at as immoral, but there are plenty of horrible reasons, aren’t there? No big surprise, either, that the Holy Bible is considered “just a book” to you. If the Bible condoned homosexuality, you wouldn’t view it as just a book, then. I, or anyone else, don’t have to quote you a good reason why homosexuality is immoral— you already know that it’s immoral. Oh, yes you do.

Morse, you’re at the wrong site to seek the validation you’re after, but there are plenty of sites that will tell you what you want to hear. Why waste your time here?

ISHMAEL:

Father Joe, yes God can only judge homosexuals and it’s true that their acts are against God’s laws. But we should respect homosexuals and treat them very kindness and respect.

I don’t have a problem with homosexuals but I don’t agree with the sexual stuff they do. But I believe God will judge us at the same time that he judges homosexuals. I believe the things that homosexuals do is sinful, but that being gay is not a sin.

LEIGH:

OK, everyone is quick to judge the homosexuals whether men or women; but, at the same time, we have Catholic priests molesting BOYS. Maybe you should put all your time and energy on something that matters?

FATHER JOE:

I have spoken about the tragedy of such men in the Church, too. But someone has observed that while not all homosexuals are pedophiles (or pederasts), most of the cases of such sins against children by churchmen have been homosexual in orientation and act.

LEIGH:

I have read the Bible and know what it says about homosexuality. I also know that I will only be judged by God. None of you have the right to throw judgment on anyone else. You are no one to say what is right and wrong.

FATHER JOE:

You have read the Bible, really? What you say is not what the Bible says.

LEIGH:

I know straight people and gay and most of the straight marriages I know (not all) end in adultery and lies. Meanwhile, spouses in all the gay marriages I know have the upmost respect for each other.

FATHER JOE:

You would recommend perverse relationships by castigating marriage? No, you are very much in error.

LEIGH:

I believe a person cannot help who they fall in love with and are attracted to. I am not saying gay is better than straight; I just think everyone should worry about their own relationships and give the gay community a break.

FATHER JOE:

I think we already give them a break. We love them, despite their sinful behavior. However, it would be a false love to say nothing regarding actions which offend God and our nature. We speak not as a perfect people or as kin to the self-righteous Pharisee, but as sinners who know Christ’s mercy.

ISHMAEL:

Father Joe, God does not judge homosexuality because that’s not good.

Homosexuality is not a sin. It is just the ministers out there trying to get people to believe otherwise. God will never judge because he respects and accepts them for who they are. If they are God’s kids, then why does he judge?

FATHER JOE:

Sorry Ishmael, but something objectively wrong is not right just because we want it to be otherwise. The ancient Jews condemned homosexuality as repugnant to God and enacted severe punitive measures against it. Likewise, both Christian Tradition and Scripture are clear in its prohibition and in how such activity deprives one of membership in the kingdom of heaven. Your view of parenthood is flawed; it is a role not of blind toleration, but one where guidance about right and wrong is offered. Divine justice speaks to the demands of natural law and divine positive law. Yes, there is infinite love and wondrous mercy, but never at the cost of truth or by compelling collaboration with moral evil. We are creatures and it is not the place of the creature to tell the Creator that he cannot judge us. We belong to him. Our posture should always be that of humble obedience. God does not merely accept us for who we are but calls us to repentance and conversion. If you do not know that then you are a stranger to the Gospel.

WAYNE:

Father Joe, I am who I am and not defined by my sexuality alone. I feel that I am no less one of God’s children than a heterosexual. I can only hope that God is more compassionate than you are.

I have spent my life trying to be a good person by loving and being considerate of my neighbor and sharing my time, talent and treasure.. I pray and participate at Mass, not just attend, on a regular basis and have faith that God will judge me for all I was in life, not just my sexuality.

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

FATHER JOE:

Given the weather, I have a few snow balls, but no stones to throw. It is NOT my intention to be inconsiderate or mean. I am, however, a Catholic priest, and as such am obliged to teach and believe what the Church holds to be true. Yes, you are not utterly defined by your orientation; however, although you admit this, you then demand a full acceptance of your homosexuality or else. Sorry, that just does not wash. Like any unmarried heterosexual, you are called to a chaste life without genital or sexual activity. Since homosexuals cannot marry one another, you must then practice perpetual celibacy. As long as you are free from mortal sin, there is nothing that prevents you from the full and active participation in the Mass and Holy Communion. This is a statement of fact. Nothing is said to hurt you. God loves you and so does the Church. But all of us must obey God. The moral code on such questions is quite clear. I will pray for you.

ISHMAEL:

So Father Joe, are you are saying that if you were not a Catholic priest you would agree with homosexuality? You said, “God loves you and so does the church,” but then you said, “All of us must obey God.” It sounds like you are saying God does not love Wayne. It sounds like you are against homosexuality, Father Joe!

FATHER JOE:

No, priest or not, I would accept and believe what the Church teaches. However, as a priest I have a special commission to preach and to teach. It is not my place to substitute the whims of men for the truths of God and his holy Church. The Church rightfully opposes homosexual activity as wrong and as sinful. Homosexuality is a disorientation, a disease of the mind. God loves us all, including homosexuals. However, he wants us to LOVE HIM enough to obey him and to make the needed sacrifices to do so. We all struggle but not all our struggles are the same. Deviant sexual attraction and practices do not constitute a legitimate human right, nor should they be encouraged or normalized. Civil society is very wrong about this. There should even be civil sanctions against such crimes. Until recently sodomy was listed among the vices that were punishable under law.

MARCIA:

Anatomically speaking, the anus was not designed as a sexual orifice nor was man’s seed intended to be planted in feces. Male and female were created by God sexually different so as to procreate the species. Going beyond that design by anyone is perverse.

Homosexual acts are perverted or nicely put, “disordered.” There really is no argument here since the created design of male and female was quite simple and meant for the most basic intellect to understand.

To argue that God allows or accepts anything else negates everything the Scriptures tell us. Sex in and of itself is not necessary for love to exist.

ISHMAEL:

Dear Father Joe, why is the Church so against gay people? It is not a disease of the mind you dumb priest! The problem is ministers out there trying to get people to hate homosexuals. Do you dislike gay people?

FATHER JOE:

I do not hate anybody. But I am a priest and a Christian. I trust God’s Word on this subject. My appreciation of natural law substantiates my religious beliefs. I believe that homosexuals are called to lives of celibate and chaste love. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Sexual expression outside of marriage is a sin.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 10 Comments »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #4 (Debate)

Posted on March 13, 2012 by Father Joe

A Debate with Max on Homosexuality

MAX:

Some argue that in regard to the condemnation of homosexuality it would be difficult to find anything comparable in the Scriptures to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is true— if you don’t know what the story references.

FATHER JOE:

Scripture has many levels and can be multivalent; nevertheless, how it is understood by the people who claim it does matter and more so than any proposed rediscovery or rethinking of the texts. You are simply bending over backwards to discount one of the two tiers against homosexuality, the witness of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church also employs a Christian anthropology that relies heavily upon the perennial philosophy of the Church and natural law.

MAX:

Historically, the story is presented as an indictment of homosexuality. Presumably, those knocking at the host’s door are male homosexuals bent on abusing the host’s male guests. The telling moment in this story, however, is when the host offers his daughters in place of his guests. These were “townspeople.” So, since the host knew them, he would have known that in this situation his daughters would not satisfy homosexual men— from the youngest to the oldest townsman— presumably from five years old to eighty.

FATHER JOE:

Lot offered his daughters because he was desperate and really did not know what to do. The men at the door are true “sodomites,” wanting to have their way with his mysterious visitors. Even the revised New American text has not garbled it: We read: “Before they went to bed, ALL the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old—ALL the people to the last man—closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may HAVE INTIMACIES with them’” (Genesis 19:4-5).

MAX:

Most Catholic Scripture scholars today would see the story differently. Probably it is a story of ancient hospitality codes; the conduct rules between hosts and guests. When one travelled to a distant place he usually stayed with strangers. There were no Holiday Inns. This made for a risky situation for both host and guests. So host-guest rules (Xenia) were critical. In fact, Lot alludes to this in telling the townspeople: “these guests have taken shelter under my roof.” So he must protect them at all costs— including the lives of his daughters and his own. The nature of their assault on the guests symbolizes the degree of depravity in their lives. What was the nature of their depravity? Take your pick. Israelite tradition attributed it to wickedness of the city. The Yahwist (J Source) thought it was homosexuality; Isaiah thought it was a lack of social justice. Ezekiel saw it as a disregard for the poor and Jeremiah thought it was a general state of immorality.

FATHER JOE:

I do not know any orthodox Catholic Scriptural exegetes who would take the sin of homosexuality out of the mix. Your supposition about hospitality codes is just that and probably derived from the few footnotes on the bottom of your Bible. Every school boy who went to a Catholic college learned about the sources imbedded in Genesis. We also know that stories and references are sometimes told with a different emphasis. However, the whole Bible and not dissected parts is what we embrace as God’s inspired Word. The text is clear that these townsmen and boys wanted the visitors for homosexual rape. I would call that being pretty inhospitable! Sodom is destroyed because their perversion capped a vast malaise of immorality. “But among Jerusalem’s prophets I saw deeds still more shocking: Adultery, living in lies, siding with the wicked, so that no one turns from evil: To men they are all like Sodom, its citizens like Gomorrah” (Jeremiah 23:14). The comparison here is less with sodomy and more with the fact that like Sodom, no one is innocent or seemingly willing to repent before it is too late. People selfishly involved with their sinful lives care little for justice or for the poor. Likewise, Ezekiel compares God’s people to Sodom to awaken them from their moral stupor: judging his people as neglectful of the needy, he said, “Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them” (Ezekiel 16:50). In any case, this was a bit of an aside. I made reference to Sodom and Gomorrah to show that, even in the earliest days, the Bible condemned such sexual behavior as sin. I doubt that any day soon God will shoot lightning bolts down upon gay people. God would still be displeased, though.

MAX:

In contemporary times it has been fashionable to demonize homosexuality every chance we get in spite of the Church asking that we show kindness and sympathy. Maybe that’s why we like the homosexual interpretation so much.

FATHER JOE:

I neither like nor dislike it. It is simply the way things are and I have no authority to change it. Homosexuals should not be teased or bullied. We should not call them names. They are also God’s children. God calls them to celibate love and holiness. I embraced celibacy as a sacrifice of my priesthood. For the sake of my vocation to serve God’s Church, I freely gave up the right to have a wife and family. Unless some reversal in inclination is in the offering, the homosexual accepts celibacy from necessity. Homosexual actions are sinful. As for the homosexual orientation, it is unfortunate but invokes no fault. The life of purity brings no condemnation, but grace and holiness.

MAX:

For me it’s a question of catecheses. In the Old Testament we need to stop teaching old Babylonian myths and Assyrian folkloric stories and start teaching Hebrew history and how the Hebrew Bible was put together.

FATHER JOE:

Faith is not found in dissected parts of the Bible or in historical-critical analysis of Scriptures. You seem to admit some deficiency in various parts of the Bible, and yet, it is all God’s inspired revelation. The final interpretation of the texts remains with the Pope and the bishops in union with him, not with you and not with the so-called experts. Look to the kerygma of faith, and not to the semi-atheistic techniques that rob the Bible of mystery and ultimately of binding truth.

MAX:

The New Testament, particularly the Synoptics, are written in the genre of Greco-Roman biographies. If one is not familiar with the genre form, he’s not going to really appreciate the New Testament. The average pew Catholic, which is the majority, gets none of this from the pulpit. So as time goes on movements like the New Atheism is going to continue to eat our lunch as we will continue to look sillier and sillier. Catholicism is a defensible religion. So we need to start doing it.

FATHER JOE:

The New Testament gives us four Gospels each with its own particular theology but all about the life of Jesus Christ. If you deny that it gives us the real life of Christ then you fall under the censure of the Syllabus of Errors against the heresy of Modernism. We have Acts that gives us a window into the early Church. We have the Book of Revelation which reminds us about God’s providence and how all things will be consummated in Christ. We have various letters, which instruct and admonish the churches.

We will not survive the New Atheism by adopting its methods or by making Christian truths, dogmatic and moral, somehow relative. Sorry, I will stick to the faith that is survived the ages and is true, not with your new dissenter’s version.

Returning to the topic of this post, homosexual acts are immoral— PERIOD!

Discussion

TS:

“Only God Can Judge Homosexuality”— Assumption: The perfect Deity has a need to cast judgment.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, we have a need for judgment. We bring it upon ourselves. We were made for God. If our faith in words and witness testifies to him, he will give us himself. If we reject him, he will respect our freedom and draw us away from his presence. The joy of heaven and the pains of hell are first fashioned in this world and made final in the next.

MICHAEL:

I don’t understand why we complicate the simple things of life. God desires so much to bless us in abundance. Why are we so ignorant of this?

Instead of being receptive, we’ve chosen to be wayward in disobedience and unworthy of any blessings. God can’t bless us if we are self willed and live according to our flesh. This is an insult to God. I would choose to go without sex my entire life for that fact alone, IF I were a person with homosexual tendencies.
Our Lady told the Fatima children that souls fall into hell like snowflakes because of sins of the flesh. They’ll never know what they’ve missed out on. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IS RESERVED FOR MARRIED PEOPLE OF OPPOSITE SEX ALONE. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

TASTI:

Father Joe, I am glad that you have gay friends and continue to have dialogue with them. That says a lot about you and your ministry. I will read your other posts. You have every right to your opinion as I do. On this issue we differ. I do not have argument with God. It is you I disagree with on this issue. I am sure we can go back and forth on just this point.

Even the clergy is at odds about their own interpretation of Scripture, each calling each other valid or invalid. Look how many churches exist today who broke away from the original Catholic Church because of one point of doctrine or another. Yes, we can go back and forth on this point also.

As passionate as we are about our different points of view on this topic, you have responded to the opposing questions thoughtfully with your points. If I ever have the opportunity to be in Maryland one day, I would love to drop by your parish and visit. You would be a very interesting person to talk to about faith matters.

MORSE:

“Returning to the topic of this post, homosexual acts are immoral— PERIOD!” Why? If it’s just because you think your god says so, then it’s as completely arbitrary as “wearing hats indoors is immoral.” If you have an actual reason as to any harm that homosexuality causes, by all means present it. I am, however, well read in many of the debunked “homosexuality leads to crime/depression/unsafe sex’ studies.” But, as I said, they are debunked. Anything new, however, would be lovely.

FATHER JOE:

My posts are religious ones. Two Scripture citations were made in the first, next I quoted the universal catechism, and here I record an extended debate. It is a debate within Christianity. Except for the matter of natural law, I had not originally intended to extend it to atheism. As a Catholic, I believe that God exists and that he and his laws are part of an objective order. Christians have as much right as anyone else to have their say and to have their votes counted in a free society. As for the various problems associated with homosexuality, I hardly want to discuss such a sordid business. Let it suffice to say that I know a doctor who has had to perform a great deal of rectal surgery because of the damage caused by anal intercourse. In any case, I think your comment here is mere mischief.

NIGEL:

Nigel cited my initial blog post with the two Scriptures passages that condemn homosexuality…

Pastor, I don’t know where you went to seminary, nor do I know how long you’ve been preaching, but it is clear to me that you’ve forgotten a very important, yet basic, passage from the Bible, and this is what it says:

He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Luke, 10:27)

It seems that you are quite capable of doing the first part of this passage quite well, however you clearly don’t have the slightest clue as to do the second. Gays and lesbians, Father, are just as much your brothers and sisters as anyone else. And yet, here you are belittling them and name-dropping God as a cover for it.

My suggestion to you, then, would be for you to re-evaluate the people you work with on a daily basis. Chances are, you work and pray with gays (whether or not you’re aware of it), so I’d suggest that you change your ways.

I hope that you learn to accept people for who they are, regardless of whether or not you agree with the way they live their lives.

FATHER JOE:

Nigel, I think you were rather rash in judging me before inviting some discussion.
I posted the verses on my Blog to illustrate the negative view that is taken from Scripture about homosexual activity. (The inspiration was a new HALLMARK card that supports gay civil unions or marriages.) In my follow up comments I also quoted the universal catechism of the Catholic Church. It was never denied that gays and lesbians may also be brothers and sisters in faith. I firmly believe that we treat everyone with respect and compassion. Considering homosexual acts as sinful does not mean that we must necessarily hate or discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Regarding Luke 10:27, the love of God and neighbor is not an emotional affair but must have real Christian substance. It refers to a movement of the will and a practical application. The model of love that our Lord gives us is that of sacrifice. Loving God means placing faith in his Son and allowing that love to spill over upon our neighbors. If we firmly believe that certain things are right and wrong, then love must take hard stands. Like Jesus in the garden, the movement of our soul has to imitate Jesus’ submission, “Not my will, but thy will be done.” We want to please God, no matter what the cost. We want our neighbor (composed of both friends and enemies) to be happy and to know the joys of the kingdom and eternal life. Although sometimes ridiculed, there is truth in the proposition that we must “love the sinner but hate the sin.”

I count a number of gay men and even lesbian women among my friends. A few of them agree with me that they are called to a life of chaste celibacy, service and prayerfulness. Others would disagree with me but I remain close to them and their families. They know what I think and I will not deceive them about it. They also know that I am there for them, always ready to bring absolution to those with contrite hearts and to anoint those who will soon see God. Peace!

ROBERTA:

No human has the right to judge what is immoral for another.

FATHER JOE:

Ridiculous! Would you not judge the immorality of a pedophile or a slaver? Sure you would; indeed, while subjective, you have already judged me for judging!

ROBERTA:

If gays want to act on the way they were born let them be.

In the end only the higher being can judge if they have made a mistake or not.

FATHER JOE:

Again this is silly. You are saying that the Church must be silent about Christian morality! The Church and her ministers have every right to transmit the values of faith. The Church also has a right to be a player in the public forum.

ROBERTA:

I know many gay people and most of them are wonderful kind loving people with families, friends, homes, jobs and yes even children. Just let them be and show some love and compassion.

FATHER JOE:

A failure to admonish the sinner is a pathetic love. No one is talking about deliberately hurting people just to make their lives miserable. As a Catholic priest and as a Christian, I have a mission mandate to spread the faith. If St. Paul took your advice, whole epistles would disappear from the Bible. As a priest, one of my duties is the forgiveness of sins and to help people in receiving sanctifying grace. We should all want our homosexual brothers and lesbian sisters to go to heaven, and ourselves along with them. Silence and moral apathy is a false compassion and not from God. You mean well, but such an attitude is defeatist. My suspicion though, is that it reflects a moral decision, that homosexual activity is no big deal. In contradiction, Catholicism regards all sexuality and personhood as tremendously important.

SMILEY:

Father, what about homosexual tendencies? Let me explain. What if a person has a leaning towards this terrible sin which cries out to God for vengeance? The person may never act on it physically, but what about mentally. Does not the Bible say not only committing adultery is wrong but so much as looking at a woman the wrong way?

What about sinful acts committed in the mind leading to self abuse. This is also a mortal sin is it not?

We live in a spiritual minefield where every ad on TV and in the news and on the radio we are exposed to these things. God Help us!

FATHER JOE:

You answered your own questions; yes we can sin in the mind and the imagination.

JOHN:

Please, let us stop the garbage that only God can judge a homosexual, while we have no qualms about the state or city or Feds putting some pedophile or murderer away.

As a true Traditionalist, let us just go back to our Baltimore Catechism with respect to Sin, chapter 6:

What is actual sin? Actual sin is any sin of willful thought, word or deed contrary to the law of God.

What is mortal sin? Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.

Why is this sin called Mortal? This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation to the soul.

How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal? To make a sin mortal three things are necessary; a grievous matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.

Let’s now jump to chapter 11.

Why did Christ found the Church? Christ founded the Church to teach, govern sanctify and save all men.

Are all men bound to the Church? All are bound and belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it can NOT be saved.

Now this must come as a shock to the Church of Vatican II that teaches that even those that deny Christ such as Jews, Moslems and Hindus can actually be saved, as Mother Teresa actually taught in India.

This is false, and for those who are homosexual which Scripture clearly condemns, this is a mortal sin in any way shape and form, and I can only guess because upwards of 50% of Catholic priests are homosexual themselves, they don’t have the guts to call it like it is.

Christ can only be shedding tears in heaven for what has become of his beloved Church.

FATHER JOE:

I don’t know how many gays may be in the priesthood. Neither can you know. We need to support our priests. Most of our clergy are good men, faithful to their celibacy, their prayers, and to their parish responsibilities. God may also be shedding tears for those quick to condemn priests and for those adding to the wounds of Mother Church. God bless you, you are right about sin. Peace!

MICHAEL:

John, Mother Theresa taught exactly what the Church teaches. We never deny ANYONE the possibility of salvation. We don’t do that because we know that Jesus has been given complete and full authority by His Father to judge and to rule the Earth. All of us will be judged on three criteria:

The light of truth that we have.
The opportunities that God gave us.
The choices that we’ve made.

I disagree with your assertion that 50% of our priests are homosexuals. That’s simply not true and where did you come up with that figure?

Regarding mortal sin as it relates to modern society, there is no such thing as mortal sin anymore. What we have is moral relativism, which is the denial and refusal of objective truth and moral absolutes. I would love to see everyone adhere to fundamental Catholic teachings, but I’m sorry to say that I think that we’re too late for that. This is not 1953 and Fulton Sheen isn’t on prime time TV.

The old man has a strong grip of his short rope and it’s getting tighter and tighter with each passing day. We don’t have any more spiritual unity in this country, which is our main downfall. Despite all of this, I ask myself what I can do to make things better. I know that I can never change another person’s way of thinking by foisting my views upon them. What I do is this; I try as hard as I can in conforming my life to Christ and my will to the inerrant will of God. I can only account for what I do.

JOHN:

Father, my apologies for broad-brushing the priesthood; those like yourself, who are so honorable and devout, are to be role models for sons of the Church like myself. Such is as was the case 50 years ago when the most honorable and proud thing a parent could show off was a son who entered the clergy!

With respect to Mother Teresa, she was a wonderful beautiful woman; but, by many accounts, she was not in any way an Apostle for the Faith. Neither was she in the business of conversions. She actually compromised the Catholic faith in India and taught the teachings of the Church incorrectly, informing the Hindus (a pagan religion— 1st commandment I may add?) that as long as one were a good Hindu, they could be saved. Any 1st year theology student or anyone who ever read the OT or NT knows this is false. She did much good as a HUMANITARIAN; but, in my opinion is not a saint. Sorry.

FATHER JOE:

Mother Teresa always sought to be of one mind and heart with Christ and his Church. She had many wonderful insights into the wonder of human creation and the sanctity of life. She embraced poverty so that she might pour out herself entirely for the poor. She never made any claim about being a theologian. Saints sometimes make practical mistakes and/or fail to make distinctions in the faith that are entirely accurate. But saints are always humble, and like Mother Teresa, always deferred to men like Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). I recall once that she was quite apologetic when she mistakenly received Holy Communion at a Mass offered by a priest of the Patriotic Catholic Church in China. She honestly admitted that she did not know such was prohibited. Although the old Tridentine form was used, she said it looked the same and she had not followed the current political situation between the Church and the government of Communist China. China had invited Mother Teresa and her sisters to start a house in their country. A similar invitation came from Cuba. Doors closed to most in the Western world were opening to her. Such is the mysterious power of love, and a sign that God’s providence was leading her footsteps.

Her sisters in Washington reached out to the poor and offered tender care to those dying from HIV complications. Many of these suffering people were homosexual; and yet, the sisters loved them unconditionally. That is also the face of the Catholic Church on this important issue.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #3 (Debate)

Posted on March 12, 2012 by Father Joe

A Debate with Fred on Homosexuality

FRED:

We Christians want to avoid sin that offends God. We do not unilaterally harm God but we do wreck our love relationship with Him by sinning. Created in His loving image, we fail to live up to expectations. Without Jesus and His deal to make it all right, we would be planning our new residence in Hell. But we have taken Jesus as Savior and Lord and He keeps us in His Father’s loving will. As Lord, Jesus bases and defines ALL sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Such obvious sins as theft, murder and adultery are unloving because each has a victim, someone not receiving love.

FATHER JOE:

Yes, sin is always a violation of love.

FRED:

Please tell me, who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship? Neither is a victim, neither is unloved. Where is the hurt? Who could bring suit against the “sinner”? What Gospel writer or Bible prophet claimed homosexuality is sinful? Jesus didn’t. These are not rhetorical questions; they are unanswered by those who refuse God’s grace and live by working the law.

FATHER JOE:

St. Paul’s words cannot be rationalized away. He was the great apostle who spoke about us as living in the freedom of grace that faith brings and not under the yoke of the law. However, he is also the one who exhorts against homosexual activity as a sin that can cost us eternal life. Are you saying that the epistles of St. Paul in the Bible are not God’s inspired Word? The teachings of Christ come through his words and actions and through the witness and message of the Apostles in his living Church.

Your questions are good ones and I will attempt to answer as best I can:

1. Who is the unloved victim in a homosexual relationship?

There are many victims, beginning with Christ who as the saving Lamb of God suffered and died under the weight of all the sins committed or ever to be committed. If we loved Jesus as we should, then we would make a better effort to live a virtuous life in keeping with the commandments. The Jews understood the commandments against sexual immorality as also referring to homosexual misconduct. It was for that reason that they enacted a dire punishment upon those caught. I must also add a corrective. Sometimes sin is not a matter of an “unloved victim” but rather of a person or persons who were not loved enough. True love requires discipline and sacrifice. When I prepare couples for marriage and discover that they are cohabitating and/or fornicating, their response is often that they love each other “too much” to wait. I would not deny that they love each other, but there is something of a lie about what they say and do. If they loved each other as true Christians should, then they should be willing to undergo any difficulty and sacrifice for the beloved. Thus they lie about the depth of their love. The second lie is their relationship, itself. The marital act is a loving act between a husband and wife. Between anyone else it is a fraud and cannot express what God intends for it to convey. Two homosexual men or two lesbian women might have incredible affection for each other. Because of their sexual disorder, this accompanies a passionate interest as well. But sometimes true love does not mean intimate embracing or being together. Sometimes it means walking away and distance. Sexual love is only permitted between spouses in marriage. Unmarried heterosexuals are not entitled to it. Marriage by definition is a covenant or contract between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as same sex-marriage. Thus, people of the same gender may never engage in sexual acts with one another. I know this sounds harsh, but I believe that homosexuality is viewed as an abomination by God. I see no way around the Scriptural testimony or the basic physical mechanics of human nature. Men and women’s parts fit together and they are made for each other. Homosexuality means trying to rewrite the manual, and the end result does not work very well. There is no potential for offspring and the bodies themselves are sometimes harmed. Love does not have to be sexual. If there is no possibility of reversal, I believe homosexuals are called to a generous and prayerful love in the context of the Church and for the larger community. But this love must be chaste and celibate.

2. Where is the hurt?

The hurt comes from a failure to love each other as God intends. One may not immediately become aware of the harm on a subjective level, but it is there. Just as kids who say they are in love take no note of the STD they transmit from one to the other; homosexual couples may only become aware over time of the emotional frustration inherent in feigning legitimate sexual intercourse. Further, there must be a spiritual effect, given that there is an objectively immoral relationship. As for Catholics, the Magisterium of the Church leaves no doubt that homosexual acts are always and everywhere disordered and wrong. The question might be better phrased as, “Who does it hurt?” I hear this all the time from young people who are sexually active. They learn all too soon that it hurts them and that there are serious consequences for sinful behavior. Casual relationships often break off; as for homosexuals, statistics show that the gay pick-up scene is more the rule than the exception. A husband and wife can truly express the two becoming one flesh. Gay sexual activity always leaves the partners somewhat estranged from each other. No matter how much they try, they are never one flesh. This makes infidelity all the easier. The manner by which they parrot the marital act is in itself somewhat abusive and an ugly caricature of the male-female dynamic.

3. Who could bring suit against the “sinner”?

Traditionally I suppose it was society that punished certain sins judged as criminal. The federal government forced the Mormons of Utah to give up plural marriage and up until recent times, sodomy and homosexual activity were illegal in most places. Indeed, cohabitation between men and women was punishable in some states, like Virginia. Many places were so concerned about it that after five years, the legality of common law marriages was imposed. The judgment that most matters, is that of almighty God. Anyone who contends that God would look the other way or favor homosexual unions is fighting two thousand years of tradition. Contemporary revisionism is on pretty shaky ground.

FRED:

It is noteworthy that Gay people employ themselves in loving professions like medicine, education and the ministry. However, some Christians evidently work in the Biblical judicial system.

FATHER JOE:

That is not fair! All Christians should seek to know the mind of God so that they might better please him. God revealed his truths to us for a reason, not so they may be ignored or rationalized away. Many Christian heterosexuals are also in the service ministries, but any denial of the objective moral order represents a false compassion. Homosexuals are urged to be chaste and celibate, not because we are busy-bodies or want to hurt them, but because we love them and want them to do what is right. It is in their interest to be holy and in a right relationship with God and his Church. This relationship has both a personal and a corporate component. We take St. Paul seriously when he says that certain types of conduct can cost us our place in the kingdom of heaven.

FRED:

Certainly if God didn’t want men to have sex with other men, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD” (see Leviticus 18:22, 21:13). God wanted Moses to eradicate rampant idolatry in the Jewish nation. That whole “… as with a woman” thing condemns straight men pretending to make it with a woman, such as during idol worship. Paul explains it further when putting down the straight Romans (1:26-28) for “leaving their natural relations” (i.e., as with a woman) and having idolatrous sex with men. Gay men are attracted to other men by definition and by God. They can only imagine what sex “… as with a woman” would be like.

FATHER JOE:

There is some confusion in your words at this point. Fred, you are not being honest with yourself or us. God is abundantly and brutally clear. The issue with the Jews was a lot more complicated than idolatry. Jewish and Christian anthropology will not permit homosexuality. The verdict for such sins in the Old Testament was terrible, either God raining down fire from heaven upon two cities or the stoning to death of those who were exposed. Arguably the ancient Jews were more bloodthirsty than we would care to think about; but penalties aside, homosexuality was never tolerated.

Many in the pagan world (who worshipped false gods or idols) also tolerated homosexuality. We are not to be like the pagans, yesterday or today. Looking at the context that you note from Leviticus, we read:

“You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent” (Leviticus 18:21-23).

Goodness! The ancient Jews classified the evil of homosexuality as between child sacrifice to demons and sex with animals! Certain elements of the Levitical codes were based upon accidentals and custom. These prohibitions here represent a significant understanding of what makes up the substance of humanity: the sanctity life and value of children as opposed to the barren vulgarity of sodomy and zoophilia.

As for Romans, you are presumptuous in saying that “straight Romans” were condemned for homosexual sex. St. Paul is a Pharisee, he knows the Jewish law. The condemnation here is because some followed their inclination, their homosexual disorientation. By the way, bisexuals stand just as condemned by their conduct as others who violate the natural order and God’s will. Sexual disorientation is viewed by the Church as an effect of Original sin. God did not design men to be so orientated. They are wounded or broken.

Imagine, for a moment Fred that God is speaking to you through St. Paul (Romans 1:18-27):

“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 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.”

You are suppressing the truth for what you want to selfishly believe. You worship the creature, the folly of men before the wisdom of God. That which should be clear and evident is made foggy in your mind. Here is further Scriptural testimony (1 Timothy 5-11):

“The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance. 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, practicing homosexuals, 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.”

Jude 6-7 offers another witness on this matter:

“The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

FRED:

“Homosexual” was coined about 1865, so any Bible translation since then that uses a form of that word is a lie that needs to be emended. (The King James Version is honest.) It premiered in a1946 English Bible and continues to condemn loving Gays.

FATHER JOE:

Do you prefer the label sodomites? [Given that this biblical term is increasingly viewed as hurtful and offensive, I am weaning myself from using it.] The word “Gay” is unfortunate. I have met very few happy homosexuals.

FRED:

What is the most love one can show another sinner? Offer them an eternity with God through the redemptive cross of Jesus. Instead of judging them, shouldn’t Christians be telling those “sinful” homosexuals that Jesus died for their sins? The stumbling block is that Gays do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians. Know Jesus, know love. No Jesus, no love.

FATHER JOE:

What do you think the Church is trying to do? We want homosexuals to know divine forgiveness and salvation in Christ. However, this requires the admonishment: repent and believe! If we did not love them, we would keep our mouths closed and allow them to continue toward perdition. We speak out because we love and care. Unfortunately, certain homosexuals interpret this as hatred and being mean-spirited. Jesus is both the judge of the world and the lover of souls. He is Divine Justice and Divine Mercy, in person. You focus upon his mercy but neglect his justice. The problem is not that homosexuals “do not want to affiliate with unloving and judgmental Christians,” but rather, that they are resisting conversion and hard obedience, as well as those Christians who love them too much not to tell them the truth. Homosexual acts are wrong. God does not approve. Embrace purity and platonic friendships.

Discussion

TASTI:

Self-righteousness, however packaged, using scriptures to legislate your brand of religious morality against a group of people in a democratic society is simply reflective of the same kind of intolerance that goes back ages. Scriptures have been used to justify racism, hate and all kinds of acts against mankind in the name of God. Thankfully, there are those within the Catholic and Christian community who don’t share this same kind of narrow perspective. The fight for civil rights for the LGBT community will continue and will eventually win.

FATHER JOE:

Who is self-righteous? I quoted Scripture and the universal catechism. Your problem is not with me but with God and his Church. Apparently you have not read all my posts on this subject, because I believe that everyone, including homosexuals, should be treated with respect. I have friends who are gay. However, I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. They disagree with me and I disagree with them. Why would you deny me the right in a democratic society to express my ideas, no matter how offensive you might find them? I advocate no violence or gross acts of discrimination. I believe in working within the system, yes, even though the legislation and judicial process might very well go the other way. I do not believe in policing bedrooms and neither do I believe in a totalitarianism that masquerades as democratic liberalism. As for Catholics who think differently, yes, some do, and that is their choice. However, as a priest and a Catholic Christian, I remain with the solid teaching of Christ and his Church and not with that of the contemporary dissenters. They base their views less upon the preaching of the Church than upon the views of MTV and a secular culture.

LARA:

At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, Father, this question has occurred to me: does our incessant insanity ever cause our Creator to weep?

STEVE:

“They are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-32)

…to me this sounds like the self-appointed kings and queens I see braying continuously about the perceived evils in others.

Before swinging that bat so widely, let’s just purge the church of all the homosexuals.

Then let’s see how many guys are left standing there in their satins and velvets and embroidered hats.

FATHER JOE:

Most of the clergy I know and with whom I have worked are faithful to their celibacy. I would suspect they are also mostly heterosexuals, although a few bad eggs have given the Church pretty bad press. Pray that priests and bishops will be faithful to God, loving and protecting their flocks. By the way, even REAL MEN can wear the fancy uniforms. Peace!

GRAHAM:

Make no mistake about it: practicing homosexuality is a sin that will send people to hell; but, let’s not forget adultery, fornication, lying (white lies included), hatred, malice, envy and so forth. Read the 17 works of the flesh by Paul.

However, I do believe there are those individuals who are truly born with a desire for their own sex; it is a curse brought down through the generations— and it is an abnormality. God said He would visit the sins of the fathers from 3-4 generations ago upon the children.

(Exodus 20:5) “… for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”

In conclusion, the desire for your own sex, in and of itself, is not sin, just temptation. If, however, that desire is put into practice, you have sinned.

Love the Lord your God and He will make your ways straight (no pun intended).
(Exodus 20:6) “And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”

FRACTAL:

Love is good, God is Love. Liberty is good, too.

RENEGADE ICONOCLAST:

Mat. 7:1-5 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

speck: ‘sin’ between consenting adults
plank: pedophiles running around in the Church

FATHER JOE:

You would quote Scripture to get me to stop quoting Scripture? Pleeease! As for your “speck” and “plank” distinction, it is misapplied. Serious sins are all planks: fornication, homosexuality, as well as pederasty and pedophilia— all planks that need removal if blindness is not to become permanent. Mortal sin is mortal sin, although I would grant you that the sin between a man and woman is “according to nature” and the others are “opposed or in contradiction to nature.”

MORSE:

“…and begin to impose that lifestyle on me, my children and those who have not chosen such a life,” this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

No one is imposing anything on you. No one is forcing you or your children to be gay. We’re just trying to keep people not unlike yourself from imposing your lifestyle on others.

Here’s a nice metaphor: if you’re hitting someone with a stick, and I take the stick away, I’m not imposing on your rights. I’m protecting the right of the person you’re hitting.

JOHN:

Homosexuality is definitely wrong and serious sin. Yet that does not mean that they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. They can repent and become chaste in their lives and receive the sacraments if they free themselves from this sin. Yes it is hard to reason with homosexuals, abortionists and atheists that get ugly and turn their heads from logic. I personally thought I could change them but it is not me, it is God that does the changing.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Only God Can Judge Homosexuality #1 (Scripture)

Posted on March 10, 2012 by Father Joe

When the topic of homosexuality is raised, immediately there are those who deny that we can make a moral evaluation. We are told, “It is not for us to judge, only God.”

Adapted New Hallmark Card for Gay Marriage

Yes, it must be admitted that God is the judge of such things, but that verdict is not pending but has already been expressed by his revealed Word:

“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. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

“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. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-32)

Discussion

MICHAEL:

His mercy endures forever.

There’s always the mercy of God for those who seek it with a contrite and sincere heart.

No one has to remain in a perpetual state of mortal sin.

Those who have disordered passions or unnatural desires can always ask God, our Lady, and St. Joseph for the gift, grace and virtue of Chastity. They will come around.

Chastity means living purely for God alone in a state of grace.

For the unrepentant reprobates, they will never know what they’ve missed out on. God leaves them to themselves and He always punishes in areas of disobedience— AIDS for instance.

DAN:

I have to admit to attempting to “argue” and “reason” with people in the “blogosphere.” I find that it is impossible— especially with those posting on anti-Catholic blogs. Any argument that I have offered that tries to be reasonable, is usually met with an amazing amount of name calling and anger.

Without even specifically mentioning homosexuality, or same sex attraction, I have been castigated, for even daring to suggest that perhaps the fulfillment of our personhood is better served by trying to over-come our tendencies rather than indulging them.

It seems that we’ve got ourselves a really, really, self-centered, immature culture at this time.

VISITOR:

In my opinion, homosexuals know that homosexuality is not natural. Virtually every living human being possesses a conscience— so do homosexual men and lesbian women.

There are numerous accounts illustrating how homosexuals and lesbians, who have rejected the lifestyle, almost instantly become targets of relentless abuse and harassment by those who remain in it. Clearly, crisis of conscience is at work behind that level of anger.

Today, narcissism reigns. Reality has become personal perspective. Lies have become the truth— but only to those who can’t face the truth. Or won’t.

Every one of us must grow up, eventually, either gracefully or kicking and screaming. Some of us may not grow up until the day we die.

May we all be in a state of grace when that day comes.

OPUS: (in reference to Hallmark same-sex card)

Hallmark has made a small percentage of their profits from me since I was teenager. They’ll make from me not another nickel.

LARA:

Only God can judge homosexuality. Only God can judge whether or not abortion is wrong. Only God can judge if euthanasia is murder. What is this?

When God said we must become as little children, He didn’t mean for us to interpret that statement literally, but you’d certainly think so from the statements made by those advocating homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia.

Reading and listening to the never-ending distortions of what’s right and what’s wrong is enough to send an adult’s head spinning off of their spine— imagine the effect all of this craziness has on children? For crying out loud, the animal kingdom appears less cruel to its own than are many human beings to other human beings. Animals can’t be human, but, evidently, many humans seem satisfied to take on the behavior of animals to justify their actions.

Enough! God said plenty about homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion in His Bible, which, by the way, APPLIES TO THE WHOLE OF THE HUMAN RACE. That includes ALL OF US, not only to those of us who read its contents and follow its precepts.

Let the world exhort that insanity is sane by all of you wayward children (and you know who you are) who advocate sodomy, murder and every other perversion you’re currently advocating, in the vain attempt to clear your consciences— and you won’t, by the way.

But those of us trying to live Christian lives are not standing by to have the grossest distortions of right and wrong imposed upon our lives or upon the lives of our children.

Think we don’t have that right? Only God can judge.

DURCK:

Am I alone in interpreting as temper-tantrums all of this wailing coming from the homosexual community in that no one has a say in their behavior except for God? (Are they serious about this or do they not believe in God and are using Him as a diversion?)

Assuming they do believe, then yes, I imagine God will have the final say about their lives, after their consciences hand them over. Men or women who live the gay lifestyle are, indeed, free (willed) to live as they choose. After all, practicing sodomists and lesbians are, in truth, our brothers and sisters too.

However, when my homosexual and lesbian sisters and brothers imply that their lifestyle is moral and acceptable (by vainly legislating laws to that effect) and begin to impose that lifestyle on me, my children and those who have not chosen such a life, then I’m taking issue with that right here and right now.

And I will continue to do so with a clear conscience.

MAX:

“Only God can judge… but that verdict is not pending.”

On an objective basis one would be hard-pressed as a Catholic to argue with either part of that statement. . However, it is another matter on a subjective basis. There are many people who have done acts which are objectively wrong but after discerning their consciences and securing information from whatever source available which hey honestly considered reliable, decided on a course of action which turned out to be objectively wrong but for which they incur no subject moral guilt. This situation could arise from many sources: diminished capacity for moral judgment, educational insufficiency, paucity of moral upbringing, intellectual limitations, etc. In the secular world we live in today in this country and in Western Europe, the vast majority of people have to rely primarily on poorly formed consciences. Unfortunately, that is due to a failure of parents and the Church to develop an adequate catecheses and/or talented apologists. Those are the ones we should be praying for because they are in jeopardy. As the Gospel tells us, not all are called to be teachers; but be assured, that those who are will be held to a HIGHER STANDARD. And, those who would mislead a little one, it would be better if he had never been born.

One would indeed sound foolish to hold that every man or woman who engaged in artificial contraception or for that matter any woman, Catholic, Protestant, Jew or atheist who secured an abortion was subjectively guilty of mortal sin. They ALL committed an objectively morally wrong act but as to their subjective disposition— well, that’s where the judgment of God and the pending verdict comes in.

The above is, and has been, the teachings of my Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church for centuries, and thank God they are because they are the only teachings that are consonant with the image of a just and merciful God.

MICHAEL:

The wages of sin is death.

Yes, God has already revealed how and when He will judge. He also gave everyone a conscience. What we do with it is on us.

This judgment does not apply to those individuals choosing to live a devout and chaste life. It can be done. God loves the sinner and hates the sin.

This discussion will continue in another post.

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Homosexuality, Morality, Sexuality, Sin | 4 Comments »

Same-Sex Legislation Passes in MD

Posted on February 24, 2012 by Father Joe

Archdiocese of Washington statement on the passage of same-sex marriage legislation in Maryland:

“The Maryland Senate altered the state’s longstanding definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman in a vote today. Throughout the expedited hearings Maryland House and Senate members held in consideration of the same-sex marriage bill, Catholics and individuals across Maryland encouraged the lawmakers to protect the longstanding and proper definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Regrettably, this did not happen as the House passed legislation last week, and the Senate followed this evening.

“The Archdiocese of Washington opposes the redefinition of marriage based on the clear understanding that the complementarity of man and woman is intrinsic to the meaning of marriage. The word marriage describes the exclusive and lifelong union of one man and one woman with the possibility of generating and nurturing children. Other unions exist, but they are not marriage.

“The Archdiocese of Washington will continue to strongly advocate for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Furthermore, the archdiocese supports efforts undertaken by those who uphold the traditional meaning of marriage to bring this issue to the people of Maryland for a vote.”

Filed under: Archdiocese, Homosexuality, Marriage, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

Fallen Heroes, But Still Trust in Jesus

Posted on February 23, 2012 by Father Joe

Going back to our childhood, there were people to whom we looked up. Our heroes inspired and move us. We hoped to be like them. We trusted them and they had a significant impact upon our lives. Unfortunately, heroes also frequently fall from the pedestals upon which we place them. Indeed, we often exaggerate their qualities and achievements, making their falls from grace all the more devastating. The truth is not always well served in hero worship. Men and women are bound to fail us. A boy might think that his father is the strongest man in the world; as he grows up, he is forced to realize that even the best of fathers are still mortal men dealing with sinfulness and weakness. The same can be said about our spiritual fathers or priests. It is only Christ who will never fail us.

The rector of my college seminary joined the Episcopal church and got married and the priest who ran the CCD program in my parish when I was a boy was excused from ministry because of allegations of misconduct with a youth. Priests in the media who meant a lot to me like Fr. Ken Roberts and Fr. John Bertolucci were dismissed for credible allegations. It was all quite devastating to me. These were men who inspired me to be a priest. Indeed, I modeled many elements of my life upon them. When facing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and elders, Jesus told his friends to do as they say but not as they do. I guess those words still find application in the Christian leadership. When our heroes disappoint us, we become angry and some might even feel duped. Of course, my confidence was ultimately in the Lord. I pray every day that I will be faithful to my promises and charge as a Christian and as a priest. No human relationship or role model can ever come close to the friendship and witness of Christ. The other pieces of the puzzle only fit in place when Jesus is planted in the middle. Instead of wanting to strike out, I pray daily for my fallen heroes and for those whom they wounded, that they might know the mercy and healing of God. I also ask for guidance and strength, that I might be all that I purport and struggle to be.

Filed under: Discipleship, Priests, Sin | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »