The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
Death enters the world due to sin. Regardless of whether there was spontaneous creation or development of species as through evolution, the Church teaches that death enters the world because of sin. Had Adam and Eve remained faithful, our first parents would either have never known death or it would have been as merely opening a door and walking from one room to another. Human rebellion would cost us preternatural gifts and usher forth suffering, sickness and dying. It is a crucial hallmark of Christian anthropology, that these dark mysteries are not the result of the divine active will, but rather of his passive will— God makes space for the misuse of human freedom. While he does not preserve us from the consequences of sin, he does not forget us and makes a promise of redemption.
After the fall, our first parents hide themselves in shame of their nakedness. They forfeit their profound union with God. An awareness that raised them ahead of all other creatures of material creation was accompanied by a duty or responsibility to honor the Almighty. However, their love and fidelity fall short. Eve falls to the serpent and Adam is emasculated in complying with the demand of Eve. They would remain stewards of creation but as deeply flawed sentinels in a now broken world. The sin of our first parents brings about a woundedness to all creation. The bridge collapses between heaven and earth. It would only be in Christ our “pontifex” that the bridge would be restored, albeit in the form of a cross. While hope remains, our pilgrimage would henceforth include struggle and suffering. The actions of Adam and Eve do not mean merely death to a few but death to many. As in any mortal sin, they are stripped of sanctifying grace. This is still how we enter the world and why faith and baptism are so essential. Another lesson learned is that just as the cost of original sin is passed down to every child of humanity save Mary; all sin, even the most personal and hidden, touches others because we then cannot witness as the saints we should be. Indeed, one of the imperatives for the sacrament of penance is that we might be healed as members of the mystical body, the Church. The sin of any one of us is a cause of diminishment for all. We are called not simply as individuals but as a new People of God or New Israel.
Compounding the gravity of Adam and Eve’s rebellion is that within their intense intimacy with God comes a heightened awareness of intellect, sometimes referred to as infused science. Not only have we lost this supernatural gift, but today many seem to possess only a vague appreciation of human nature and our true place in the world. Consciences are numbed to the truth about the sanctity of human life and the dignity of persons— divine light is displaced by a satanic darkness. Every school kid is aware of this loss because learning often does not come quickly and requires constant study and repetition to store information in memory. What should be easy becomes difficult or arduous.
Original sin also strips away our sense of integrity, making us capricious and prone to the urging of concupiscence. It is hard to do the good and easy to do the bad. The symphony of harmony in us and in creation is disrupted. The fruitful blessings of the garden would be traded for the struggle of the arid wastes— men would toil for their food and women would know the pains of childbirth.
It was reported by ANSA on February 7, 2024, that Pope Francis judged it “hypocritical” to be shocked that the Catholic Church would authorize the blessing of gay couples. He offered the rebuttal in Credere, “No one is scandalized if I give a blessing to a businessman who perhaps exploits people – and this is a very serious sin.” I am tempted to give the retort that the comparison is between apples and oranges. But in truth many of us would anticipate that no cleric would give approbation through a blessing to anyone in grievous sin. The proper parallel would be with pro-abortion politicians. Many of us would very much hope that the Holy Father would refrain from either blessing or giving Holy Communion to those who scandalously parade their vices as virtues— and both sexual depravity and the murder of children constitute mortal sin and testify to an anti-gospel.
He says that the heart of the controversial declaration is “welcome.” But many learned authorities interpret it as going further and seeking the regularization of that which cannot be normalized for believers. No one contests that the Pope has a soft heart for homosexual persons. However, he sometimes seems to demonstrate a hardness to his priests and to those who place the truth prior to any pastoral accommodation. He states: “People suffer so much, we clerics sometimes live in comfort. . . it is necessary to see the work, the suffering of the people.” It may not be his intent, but this is a slight against caring priests. Clergy who uphold the teachings and values of the Church are not ogres who delight in the pain of others. Often these pastors suffer alongside their people and count themselves as the first among sinners. The promises made by men consecrated to the Lord’s service bring both delight and pain. We have the privilege to be Christ’s instruments in feeding and healing God’s people; but we also suffer the personal loss of a wife and family given our celibate love. We are also not our own men but stand under lawful authority— to our bishops and yes, certainly to the Pope. But ultimately all of us, clergy of every station and the laity, must be subject to God and his laws. Here is the crucible between sin and fidelity.
The interview leaves orthodox readers with further distress or anxiety because the Holy Father makes the aside, that “opening work in the Curia to women is important. In the Roman Curia there are now several women because they perform better than men in certain positions.” Where is this going? No one in his or her right mind would suggest that the Church should deny the benefits of female genius; but the hierarchical authority of the Church is appointed by Christ as exclusive to his apostolic men. That factor is beyond our control or power to revise. In any case, as with the men, the women chosen for various commissions or roles of participatory leadership should be exclusively selected from those who are faithful and not from the dissenters. This is an important qualification that is sometimes left unsaid and maybe unfulfilled.
When it comes to his health and mobility issues, Pope Francis remarked, “The Church is governed using the head, not the legs.” This is a good answer, although lately it seems that the Church is being increasingly governed by the heart than either by the head or the legs. This might appeal to some critics, but it can have disastrous consequences. Without the compass of truth, love is quickly misdirected and loses its way. We have seen many instances where without the guidance of the Gospel, an intended compassion becomes oppressive and tyrannical.
Individual priests should not have to say what the Magisterium and the entire Church should insist upon, and yet we have entered a strange new land where absurdity rings true, and sin is excused in private if not in public. Therefore, echoing the Scriptures, the catechism, and the legacy of the saints, let me affirm that the Church cannot directly bless or affirm sin. There should be no confusion about the covenant of marriage as strictly between one man and one woman in a bond to be maintained until “death do they part.” While the clergy can bless congregations and individual sinners; they give scandal should they specially bless couples who come before them in either adulterous or same-sex unions outside the sacrament. Despite the recent declaration Fiducia supplicans from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, as a priest of the Church, I cannot extend blessings over such couples. It is my conviction, with a fully informed conscience, that any such requests for these novel blessings must be denied for the good of souls. Given just opposition around the world, it is my hope and prayer that the declaration will be retracted, and that Cardinal Fernández will be removed as the prefect who authored the egregious document. He has quickly and utterly lost any semblance of credibility among orthodox believers. I fully concur with Cardinal Müller who has characterized the possibility of these errant blessings as both “impossible” and as “blasphemy.” Not only has ambiguity and scandal been fermented for the faithful; the deviation from biblical truth has caused incalculable damage within legitimate ecumenical outreach with non-Catholic Bible Christians.
It is true that the declaration reaffirms Church teaching about marriage and sexual-relations as exclusive to male-female couples. But what the text states in principle it then undermines or takes back in terms of praxis. An explication for conditions to allow what cannot be permitted quickly strays into rhetorical incoherence— we are told the blessings must be private, unscheduled, not in sacred space or chapels, and not in fancy-dress clothes. What moral difference does any of this make? None! Even informal or pastoral blessings are liturgical because the agents are clergy! We are told that these are individual blessings and not benedictions over same-sex unions; however, those coming forward are specifically seeking these types of blessings and validations over their bonds and lifestyles. The given rationale trespasses from the dubious to the deceptive.
While I take exception to the statement that “an informal blessing” could be extended to those cohabiting in a homosexual relationship, the document does give an escape clause that I would enact in that these blessings “should only be given if there is no risk of causing confusion about the Church’s doctrine on sexual morality, including the nature of marriage.” It is my estimation, as a pastor of souls, that such blessings would not only risk but always CAUSE such confusion. Thus, they cannot in practice be conducted by me or anyone. Note that those excited about such blessings are on the record saying that they are an important “first step.” These dissenters, for that is what they are, routinely schedule these blessings, photograph them, and then publicize the whole mess for the media. Proscriptions for the blessings are violated with impunity. What are we to make of the fact that there is little in the way of rebuke from lawful authority for doing all this? Indeed, those who criticize are judged as harsh and ideological. I would simply use the word, “faithful.”
The title of the news article alone gives me the shivers. Do we really want to speak of “demasculinizing” the Church?
Yes, it is true that there is something unique about the feminine genius that can add to our theological insights; however, the basic truths of faith are what they are, regardless of the gender associated with the theologian or philosopher. Where I sometimes perceive a difference is that women thinkers tend to be more pragmatic or earthbound in their perspective. I suspect this emanates from their natural position as the caregivers of the home, making sure that family members are healthy, well-fed and secure. Note that there are few women philosophers in comparison to men— such often requires a detachment from particular terrestrial things so as to better reflect upon basic principles or absolutes. Indeed, women often get annoyed by men who have their minds in the sky instead of firmly grounded in the practical business of day-to-day existence. This is not to say that men are utterly detached. Good husbands and fathers are certainly aware of the sacrifices and hard work they must accomplish to provide for their families. But note that priests (who make up the majority of theologians in Catholicism) are directed to celibacy so as to free them from such concerns. Of course, the pastors of parishes are also rarely counted among great theologians simply because they do not have the time to sit down for extended theological reflections. Indeed, Pope Francis is insisting upon a new theology that would not focus upon the priest at his desk or even (perhaps) before the monstrance.
The Holy Father lamented at a recently gathering of theologians that only five out of thirty were female. My interest would be less in the gender breakdown and in the particular names and agendas of those assembled. Fortunately here in the United States, the liberal feminist theologians like Mary Daley (81 years old), Rosemary Radford Ruether (85 years old), Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (85 years old) and Elizabeth Johnson (81 years old) are getting older and fewer while the more conservative, i.e. orthodox women theologians are tending to be much younger and growing in number.
Women have been invited to join the International Theological Commission since 2004. As women are given more representation in the commission and other church bodies, we can only hope that the women and men chosen will not be dissenters. It infuriates aging feminist theologians when women authorities are selected who embrace the Theology of the Body from Pope John Paul II or argue for a male-only priesthood. But these are the right sort of women who place fidelity to revealed truths over contemporary fads and politics.
I would suspect that the role of women in the Church is analogous to her role in the family. We speak of the Church with feminine imagery as “Mother Church.” I suspect there is a close approximation between the Immaculate Heart of Mary and this appreciation of our faith community where we are born again at the baptismal font, the spiritual womb of the Church. The best of women theologians would ruminate upon the gift of life and how the Church sustains her children. Further the Church is referenced in the liturgy as not only Mother to us but as the Bride of Christ. Analogies should never be taken too literally but they do speak to truth. This same Church is also regarded as the Mystical Body of Christ and that is discernably male given this designation from the incarnation.
The Holy Father desires the inclusion of women in the synodal process. This need not be something to fear, again if we make sure the right women are chosen— practicing Catholics, pro-life, dedicated to preserving the deposit of faith and urging all to keep the commandments and to live moral lives. I am reminded of the Supreme Court. The liberal voices clamor for more women and people of color but then never fail to gripe about Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett.
I cannot say I understood why the October Synod required a theological reflection on the possibility of deaconesses. Why consider what is already a moot point given the absolute prohibition of ordaining women? We are either going to frustrate or anger dissenters or there is a movement afoot to hijack the Church.
What precisely is the “male-dominated view” that still exists in society and the Church? The real danger to women is in the Trans movement where biological men are dressing up like girls and destroying women’s sports and worse yet, the very definition of “womanhood.” This is the ultimate feminization of men. Real men are struggling with emasculation in society— they do not know how to act and are thus increasingly failing to fulfill the manly role in the family and public forum. Do we want to do the same in the Church? Already, many critics are complaining that too many homosexuals have been ordained priests and that heterosexual clergy are finding themselves marginalized in the ministry.
Yes, women have always been important to the Church and we even count some important theological doctors among their number. Indeed, there are a multitude of female saints including the greatest of all, the Blessed Virgin Mary. All this has been made possible despite the so-called male-domination of the Church. Indeed, with the massive destruction of the women’s religious orders— today, more than in the traditional past— the value and talents of women are being minimized. Instead of the modern enlightenment we claim; we are actually moving backwards.
The Pope states: “The Church is woman and if we cannot understand what a woman is, what is the theology of women, we will never understand the Church. One of the great sins we have witnessed is ‘masculinizing’ the Church.” What? Should we really devalue or malign the theological reflections of great men like Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Bellarmine, von Balthasar, de Lubac, Congar, Ratzinger and others? I pray not, but the Holy Father commands all the same, “This is the job I ask of you, please: Demasculinize the church.”
Pope Francis is correct that theology should emerge from theologians “on [their] knees’ in adoration to God. Indeed, this is not new because Pope Benedict XVI also spoke about the necessity of humility. Of course the latter pope would also insist upon the perennial nature of truth as emerging from divine revelation— not as something that can be pushed as part of a political agenda or inserted by dissenters that would make a break with the past. It is here that I find very worrisome a charge for a new theology, “a paradigm shift, a brave cultural revolution,” that would further the novel ecclesial synodality. As of yet this synodality has shown no fruits, only dissention. Should we be hasty to embrace something unproven and controversial? So far many questions have been asked that are begging for answers. Those answers will please some and disappoint others. They will also unite and move the Church forward, or, in the worst case scenario, foster schism. As of right now, it is not dialogue that targets the voices on the right or those who prefer tradition to novelty; rather, we are experiencing with a degree of shock the intimidation of raw power. While the left and dissenters are largely left free to discuss whatever they want. Those who speak for objective truths or the aesthetic of tradition are increasingly silenced and censured. What surprises me is that even progressives who often tout freedom and the right to dissent are demanding pressure against their ideological opponents and their silencing. Who would have thought? It was the demand for ecclesial harmony that helped to fuel the behind-the-scenes efforts to hush up pedophile clergy. I am not saying that there is no place for ecclesial power and reprimand as a last recourse— but it should be against those who challenge the truths of the deposit of faith that come to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition— not the other way around. However, there should always be transparency and the use of argument or debate or dialogue before recourse to censure and anathema. The truth need not fear the challenges of falsehood.
Again, note that Bishop Athanasius Schneider presumes to correct recent popes, Vatican II and the universal catechism.
His arguments are not new, as they have often been mouthed, not simply by the SSPX but by sedevacantists who argue the chair of Peter as vacant since Pope John XXIII. Bishop Schneider will not come out and deny papal authority; however, he does make various insinuations, especially later in the text when he speaks about the lack of certainty regarding canonizations. Is he sowing doubt about the newest saints, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II?
He renders a rather peculiar interpretation of Genesis in light of John 8:56 as a revelation of the Trinity given to Abraham long before the New Testament. Biblical exegetes suggest it is merely a reference to the birth of Isaac (the child of promise) and the start of salvation history— it all begins with the pledge about Abraham’s seed coming to pass.
Here is the passage in the universal catechism that he calls misleading, i.e. wrong:
CCC 847 – “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: ‘Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
Pope John Paul II quoted the Council, saying:
“The Church also views with esteem the Muslims, who worship the one and only God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth” (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions 2).
I am surprised we are hearing so little upset about Bishop Schneider’s CREDO catechism. He mixes truths with his opinion in ways that can be quite seductive. I want to like his work, but it troubles me.
The truth be said, the Koran does misunderstand the Trinity, substituting the Virgin Mary for the Holy Spirit. Its adherents reject what they do not understand. The cause for the confusion is because the deity and religion of Islam is the result of an incomplete syncretism or amalgamation of beliefs extracted from Judaism, Christianity and the local tribal cults prevalent during Mohammad’s lifetime.
Bishop Schneider answers “no” to his question although it is posed as a negative or “not” query. Remember, English is not his first language. What he really means to say is, “Yes,” we do not share the Trinitarian God in common with Muslims. But, it still seems that he might over-make his case. Our differences are real but must one perfectly understand God in order to honor him?
Again, Bishop Schneider does not hesitate to contradict Pope John Paul II or the Vatican II teaching which he labels “ambiguous.” What he means to say behind tepid language is that the Council is wrong.
Lumen Gentium 16 – “Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Savior wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature,’ the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
We can certainly make the distinction that both Judaism and Islam signify “natural” religions because of the espousal of one true God. Christianity signifies a “supernatural” religion due to the revelation of this one God as “Trinity.” However, Bishop Schneider grants Islam as a religion no credit on this point. He only admits that an individual Muslim might incidentally or let me interject “accidentally” worship the true God with a natural faith.
While left unsaid at this point, such an assessment would also include the modern Jews. By contrast, many of us were taught that what the Scriptures condemned were those Jewish religious leaders (the Pharisees) who rejected the truth out of malice. However, for many of the Muslims and Jews today the issue is one of ignorance. Despite the apologetics of St. Paul, he never condemned his fellow Jews as idolaters. They worshipped the true God. Bishop Schneider might concede this but then contends that Judaism after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD becomes a distinct religion from what came before. Even though Islam cannot genuinely claim the Hebrew trajectory of faith; he would deny it for Jews as well.
While Jews and Muslims alike call upon Abraham as their father in faith, Bishop Schneider would have us believe that God is deaf to their entreaties. His focus is entirely upon Christians as spiritual children of Abraham.
Bishop Schneider directly contradicts Pope John Paul II who taught in 1999 the following:
“We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection’ (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497). The patrimony of revealed texts in the Bible speaks unanimously of the oneness of God. Jesus himself reaffirms it, making Israel’s profession his own: ‘The Lord our God, the Lord is one’ (Mk. 12:29; cf. Dt. 6:4-5). This oneness is also affirmed in the words of praise that spring from the heart of the Apostle Paul: ‘To the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen'(1 Tm. 1:17).”
I suspect that Bishop Schneider would never go out of his way to placate the sensibilities of Jews. Here is another quote from his book, CREDO.
I may be wrong, but his take on the subject seems to depart from the revision in the universal catechism:
“To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.’”
The USCCB added:
“The clarification reflects the teaching of the Church that all previous covenants that God made with the Jewish people are fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the new covenant established through his sacrificial death on the cross. Catholics believe that the Jewish people continue to live within the truth of the covenant God made with Abraham, and that God continues to be faithful to them.”
Back in 1986, Pope John Paul II visited a Roman synagogue and stated:
“The Church of Christ discovers her ‘bond’ with Judaism by ‘searching into her own mystery’, (cf. Nostra Aetate, ibid.). The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.”
I am rereading the sections of CREDO by Bishop Schneider that should probably become a matter of serious dialogue.
According to Christian faith, it is true that there is one covenant, not two. It is true that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and not through the works of the Old Law. Our Lord and the sacraments make possible saving grace. But it is also true that God does not forget his promises or his first people. There is a trajectory of faith that would compel me to question the proposition that Judaism as a religion established by God was utterly terminated with the coming of the Messiah.
Despite the quotation made by Bishop Schneider, the assessment of evolution made by the late Pope some seventy-three years ago in 1950 is not reflective of the current evidence that substantiates the development of species. The main points for Catholic teaching remain that God is the Creator, there is intelligent order or design and that while the body my evolve, the soul is immediately infused by God at conception.
Pope John Paul II in 1996 stated at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that new research revealed that physical evolution was “more than just a theory.” Pope Francis stated in 2014 to this same academy that “God is not… a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 