Blogger Priest

I recall a few years ago that certain Christian apologists responded excitedly to the breakthrough in DNA and genetic studies about the so-called “Mitochondrial Eve.” Many acclaimed it as proof for the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis.  However, it merely asserted that a line had been traced to the most recent female ancestor of all living human beings. It was estimated to extend back some 155,000 years. The estimate for Y-chromosomal Adam was vaguely estimated to go back some 200,000 to 300,000 years. It must be said, however, that the “Mitochondrial Eve” is not the first woman or the biblical Eve. Indeed, given the dating, there were other females around at the time she lived.  If there were other mitochondrial lines, they are now extinct. All women living today can trace their line to her. A selection of other ancient women may also have descendants alive today but not in a direct female line. We are told by reputable scientists that nuclear DNA studies indicate that the effective ancient human population size was always measured in the tens of thousands.

We need to be careful in trying to absolutely connect the evidence of genetics or evolution with the creation story of Genesis.  The Bible is not a science book. We know for certain that the world is far older than the biblical 6,000 years.  The cosmology of the Jews is also figurative and cannot be employed to reject a round earth or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Catholicism is not fundamentalist, and we believe in the complementarity of truth. Ours is not a faith at war with science. Could God use evolution and the development of species to bring about the first true man and woman? Yes.  Were there once different types of men and women? While even the Bible speaks of giants, again we can turn to the clear discovery of bones and artifacts. Yes, there were other branches in the human family.  While we are Homo sapiens (going back some 300,000 years), the Neanderthals roamed the world from 400,000 to 40,000 years ago. Many of us may even carry remnants of their DNA. They made tools and lived in community. Their abilities demonstrate that they were not mere apes or animals.  Thus, they must have had souls and were truly human, albeit different from us.  This would push any true Adam and Eve much further back into human history. 

There is a mystery to our origins that cannot be unveiled. This is because there is a divine operation beyond our scrutiny. God infuses an immortal soul. While the body might develop from proto-human creatures, there is no evolution of the human soul. This was the chief heresy that Darwin espoused, a point of contention for believers as well as atheists (who deny the immaterial soul). The first ensouled would be Adam and Eve. It is dubious to think that they were blue eyed, white skinned and blond haired. However they looked, the gift of a soul made them self-aware and gave them a reflective understanding unknown to other creatures. There came a moment when our first parents were alerted to their high calling, inspired by their place in creation and moved by the presence of God they immediately experienced.  It was a turning point. They could have answered their high calling and there would have been no fall.  Creation itself would have known a harmony that comes with being grafted to the heavenly kingdom.  But the fall of Adam and Eve has a terrible cost— no preternatural gifts— and suffering, sin and death would be our lot. Instead of standing tall in their vocation as men and women, they fell to all fours on the level of the beast. It is so much easier to play the part of an animal then to live up to the dignity and responsibility of a man or woman.

Just as we might have known the blessings of Adam, the Church teaches that all humanity would suffer the cost of original sin.  It is inherited or passed on through human descendants. This truth is clarified by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis. The error of Polygenism or multiple first parents is condemned. Although different from the biblical appreciation, modern science would prefer Monogenism or a common decent for humanity, often linked to “out of Africa” speculation.     

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

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.   

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

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.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

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.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

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).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »