Blogger Priest

Trying to compare the efforts to change Catholic doctrine under Pope Francis with Pope Benedict XVI’s devaluation of Limbo is absolutely ridiculous. While Limbo was taught in many catechisms, it was always at most a scholastic theory and our best guess to keep unbaptized babies out of hell.  We must remember, that many early churchmen, including St. Augustine thought that children who died with original sin on their souls went to hell (even if it should be the luxury suite in perdition).  Indeed, Limbo which is defined by ignorance of God and natural happiness, is still arguably a type of hell because we are made for God and his absence for all eternity is an essential component of hell even if minus the pain to the senses or hellfire. 

The shift against the theory began under Pope John Paul II and the promulgation of the universal catechism (1993), long before the publication of the International Theological Commission’s report in 2007. Further, if one looks closely, the possibility of Limbo is not utterly taken off the table, just arguably unlikely.  We must accept that we have no certitude on this question, even if we are optimistic that a compassionate and loving God might make some special provision for the little ones.  Many other theories have been put forward, even when Limbo was the reigning presumption. All of them are somewhat problematical. Some argued that the unbaptized children might be given a moment of enlightenment to make a judgment about their eternal orientation. Others would suggest that the desire of parents or of the Church for their salvation might suffice to save them as they have never committed personal sin. It was along these lines that the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen penned a prayer of spiritual adoption for children in danger of abortion.  

The article also confuses the teaching about the Limbo of the Innocents with the Limbo of the Fathers. It is wholly different from the certain abode where the righteous dead await the coming of Christ. After the descent of our Lord into hell or unto the quick or to the dead, he would translate the just, including all the patriarchs and prophets into heaven. This likely included good St. Joseph.  This place for the dead no longer exists. However, this is not the hypothetical Limbo of the Innocents or Children.  Despite the article’s assertions to the contrary, most old popular catechisms suggested that it was eternal— sharing a natural happiness as in the primordial garden but knowing nothing of supernatural happiness and seeing God.

The teaching of Limbo made it into the catechisms because given mortality rates, the Church felt the need to say something to calm the fears of parents. Indeed, even the current universal catechism counsels urgency in getting newly born children baptized. Failure to do so endangers their salvation. While the prospect may be unlikely, Catholics are still free to hold a view in favor of Limbo.

The report of the commission echoes the catechism that we have “strong grounds for hope” that infants might be saved— but this hope is not absolutely certain.  We may have shifted away from Limbo, but we are unwilling to dismiss the need for faith in Jesus Christ and for baptism. The Church teaches that baptism with water and in the name of the Trinity brings spiritual regeneration. Original sin is washed away. We are given sanctifying grace. We are made adopted sons and daughters of the heavenly Father and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. We become temples for the Holy Spirit. We are made members of the Church or mystical body of Christ. All this is the core doctrine involved and it is here that nothing has changed.  The assumption otherwise in the article is a lie and is propaganda for revisionists who care nothing about babies— as they are frequently the same voices that place the selfish and fearful whims of women over the right to life of their children.  There has been absolutely no movement on moral teachings like the indissolubility of marriage or the evil of sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage or the heinous wrong of abortion.  The article is comparing apples and oranges.

The author goes so far as to make a comparison of the slow death of Limbo as a theory to the fate of the traditional Latin Mass.  Again, there is no comparison as a medieval theory to save a few cannot be compared to a liturgy with apostolic roots where we have certitude of its efficacy in terms of the re-presentation of Calvary and the real presence of the Eucharist. 

The Bible says we should not call our brother a fool and so I will not speak further about the article’s author.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

A message from Lucinda . . .

Father,

I am a young girl who wishes to be closer to God, but I am unsure if I can be because of my sexuality. I am bisexual. I feel attraction to both men and women. Many say this is a sin, but I would like to ask a priest for an opinion. I do not wish to sacrifice my happiness, but I want to be closer to the Lord. Is being gay a sin?

If being bisexual is a sin, what shall I do? How can I repent from this? What do I do to stop myself from being attracted to women? I’m unsure if it is possible, as being bisexual is more than a label; it is a part of who I am. Perhaps God has made me this way – does he accept that I am gay? Or does the Lord wish for me to repent and reject these feelings?

I would really appreciate some help. Thank you.   

My response . . .

First, we need to be aware that we live in an eroticized culture where we are saturated with immodest images and fed the lie that only those who are sexually active can be happy and fulfilled. 

Second, only you can get into your head and heart as to how you know yourself and in how you feel about people and the world around you.  Are you truly bisexual or just conflicted as a youth? It is not for me to say. However, so as to respond to your inquiry, I will take what you say at face value.

Third, both the Scriptures and the Church teach that sexual activity (the marital act) is reserved to married men and women. The sexual powers are directed to the unity of spouses with the accompanying goods of fidelity and procreation. Same-sex relationships are not capable of a sexual act that is open to the generation of new human life. 

Fourth, while the catechism will speak of same-sex attraction as disordered, it is not in itself sinful. However, the acting out of same-sex intimacy would constitute serious sin. It should be noted that heterosexual sexual relations outside of marriage also constitute sin. Men and women are made for each other but relations should be within the covenant or sacrament of holy matrimony.    

Now, how do I respond? It is crucial that you do not simply identify yourself by the single characteristic of sexual attraction. You are so much more than this. I have known heterosexual men and women deeply wounded in spirit and personality because they narrowly define themselves and their happiness by the exuberance of their carnal lives. One poor woman I counseled decades ago was deceived into thinking she only had worth when men wanted her and were regularly taking her to bed.  Behind the lust and fleeting excitement, she was very unhappy and frustrated. She told me that she felt as if she was being pulled apart and in different directions. Such a lifestyle made it impossible for her to be whole. The fruit of such a life was not a family and a home but a long string of abortions and a sense of abandonment. 

There is a deception that many buy when preparing for marriage. We often hear spouses say such silly things as, “I am only half a person without him or her.” The truth says different— married or single— we must be whole and complete in ourselves.  It is this appreciation that allows a celibate priest or brother or nun to be happy. We can have many friends but we do not need sex to be complete or to know joy.  If you are truly bi-sexual then it is possible that you might find a young man to marry and to have a family. If not, you can still be rich with love and friendship, albeit without sexual congress. Do not buy the lie that love must always be expressed sexually or genitally.  I know many men and women who love each other in an intense but brotherly or sisterly manner. 

However you feel about your identity, if you are serious about being holy, then God will give you the grace to do so. The Gospel of Christ promises us the Lord’s friendship and a share in his risen life.  However, there is also the command to take up our crosses and follow him.  We cannot have everything or everyone we want in this world.  The love that Christ would have us know is inherently sacrificial. We seek to be good and holy while trying to bring others along with us in the pilgrimage of faith. God forbid that we should turn away from the Lord or lead others into sin because of our selfishness.

Who are you? While gender and attraction are part of the equation, you are so much more. Look beyond it. Make an assessment of your gifts. Discern your calling and move forward as a child of God.   

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

A message from Al . . .

Father,

Could you please answer a question for me . . . I don’t understand why God hates animals. I know he gave man free will. Animals depend on humans to take care of them. But humans do such horrible things to them and they can’t take care of themselves. Please help me understand. Thank You.

My response . . .

God loves his creation.  Genesis tells us that God gave the stewardship and subjugation of material creation into the hands of humanity.  Pope Francis and others would remind us that sometimes we have failed in this sacred charge, trashing the environment and either abusing the animals with which we share the good earth or even speeding certain species toward extinction.  The fault as with all sin is a misuse of human freedom.  The problem is not God but the callous way that we as men and women treat what God has made.  Humanity stands between the two created realms— the spiritual and the material.  Our souls possess a kinship with the angels while our bodies make us a part of the mortal and physical world.  Certain animals like dogs have developed a shared affinity and friendship with the human race.  Others are used as beasts of burden and as food.  This might seem harsh, but it is all part of the nature of things. Even if animals should not have immortal souls, nothing is lost in God. We can have certitude that all things continue to exist as eternal paradigms in the divine mind.  If people fail to show compassion to other human persons, should we be surprised when animals are mistreated?  Maybe God has given you this keen appreciation of the status of animals so that you might become an advocate for their ethical treatment?    

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

A message from Cali . . .

Seeing as you are a priest I’d like to get your opinion on something. I am currently not on speaking terms with my sister. A couple of weeks back her daughter went with me on an egg hunt and she was acting up in the car so I disciplined her. My sister didn’t like what was said. A few days later I gave my niece a warning to quit disrespecting me because she kept pushing my buttons and my sister took it as a threat. I’ve read in the Bible that Jesus said if a brother has anything against you, to put down your gift at the altar and make amends with your brother first. Does this mean that I am not able to receive Holy Communion since my sister will not talk to me and is holding a grudge? Thanks for your time.

My response . . .

How old is the child? Little kids can be annoying but we as adults need to do what we can to be patient. As they get older, the need for discipline becomes more crucial. However, some people are very sensitive about others trying to correct their children. Does your sibling not see the need for her child to treat others with respect? Does she discipline her children? There is too much I do not know about the particular situation to give a satisfactory answer. If you want to make amends with your sister and she has closed the door to you then there is not much you can do. Unburden your soul in confession, keep them in prayer and humbly approach the sacraments. Peace! 

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

It amazes me that Pavone can be laicized for his pragmatic lack of tact and impertinence toward lawful authority while Martin not only gets away unscathed but is praised by the highest authorities despite outright dissent regarding homosexuality and our teaching on marriage. Bill Donohue and the laity of the Catholic League battle to defend marriage and Father James Martin literally cuts of their legs by arguing that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is truly “married” to his boyfriend. But the League is right, such a same-sex union is only a marriage in legal fiction. The wayward priest can quantify matters all he wants; the fact that the state and a particular “Episcopal” church consider it marriage has no standing with either natural or divine positive law.

Father Philip Bochanski of COURAGE is correct that Father Martin’s published stance is “irresponsible” as it might water down moral teaching and lead those struggling into grievous sin.  Father Martin should remember that his first obligation is not to pamper those in irregular unions but to teach the truth and save souls. Referencing Amoris Laetitia, Father Bochanski quoted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “. . . as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” This was the whole point with the Marriage Matters campaign that was orchestrated by the Maryland Catholic Conference. The notion that same-sex unions might be regarded as marriages damages our understanding of matrimony and the family, a cornerstone to a healthy society. These unions and their children are the cells that keep the body of our society healthy and growing. No fault divorce and multiple marriages, cohabitation and fornication, contraception and abortion, and now same-sex promiscuity and bonds serve as a kind of cancer destroying the cells or basic building blocks to our civilization.    

Lauretta Brown reports in her article for the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER that Father Philip Bochanski also cited the 2003 document, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” that “in those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.” Father Martin has clearly failed in his priestly duty on this matter.  I say this with the deepest sadness as his recent book on prayer and Christian spirituality is a real gem.

What is right and wrong is not determined by the media, public opinion or by dictate of law and politics. God forbid that a shepherd of the Church should through obfuscation lead God’s people to doubt the teachings of faith or to reduce them to one opinion among many.  Such an action only fuels the relativism of our age.   

Living a chaste and holy life should be promoted and witnessed as a fulfilled and joyful discipleship. Just as men and women in holy marriages give witness of Christ in the world, so too do those who have embraced a life of virginal love and service. Given that those who are sexually disordered will remain so, then they can take confidence that their vocation is one of celibacy, prayer and service.  One does not need a sexual partner to be complete.  One can still have God’s friendship and the spiritual family of many loving brothers and sisters.  This is the message that Father Martin should put forward as a priest who is himself pledged to celibacy.    

Is there struggle in such a life?  Let us be honest, married or single or consecrated religious or priest, every life has its ups and downs. There are challenges and difficulties.  The believer faces it all with hope in the Lord. 

How are we to deal with people who disagree with us and the Church? First, we must not compromise the message? Second, we must respond to anti-Catholic bigotry and anger over the issue with compassion and reason. Third, we must make it abundantly clear that ours is not hate-speech but that we really love them and want them to be happy and in right relationship with God. We do not look down them as defective persons but as God’s precious and beloved children.  We want them in the Church and as companions on the journey. Fourth, any rejection of same-sex unions and promiscuity must be accompanied with the true Christian alternative— loving relationships of brothers and sisters albeit without sexual misbehavior.  It must be clear that while the Church opposes sexual activity outside the union of man and woman in marriage, she urges a real and sacrificial love as witnessed by Jesus in his ministry and on the Cross.

Toward the end of the article, mention is made of Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1986 letter, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” that admonished bishops against “any programs which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so.” This is something that Father Martin’s superiors should consider, as well as a host of German bishops in their mad dash to an out-of-control synodality.   

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

When it comes to gender dysphoria and the alphabet soup that describes various degrees and types of same-sex attraction, there is an ever-increasing complexity or dare I say fragmentation. The current nomenclature is summarized with this designation: LGBTQIA+. Please do not ask me to decipher it! Instead of challenging those with mental illness and disorientation, we are authorizing and enabling them to identify themselves by the fiction they have embraced. Every effort to check this movement has either failed or given them fodder to ridicule their critics as mean and prejudiced.  It has been joked that if we cannot beat them, then maybe we should join them? I have always wanted to be a green Martian and have decided to claim such and treat as bigots any who would deny me my non-terrestrial self-designation. I reject your reality and have decided to impose my own. I breathe carbon dioxide and eat glass.  Who are you to object and tell me what I can do with my body? My intent is not to ridicule but to expose absurdity. I suspect that many who are fearfully silent concur that this whole business is rather silly.            

Many have swallowed the notion that human respect demands total and complete acceptance even if such would contradict our most fundamental values and basic reasoning.  Gone is any wiggle space that would permit debate or even silent toleration. As politicians, progressive advocates, the media and educators seek to transform the consensus of the public forum, those with traditional views on morality and relationships are coming under the brunt of “payback” discrimination.  Christians who focus on the Bible as the Word of God are finding themselves marginalized and the proclamation of the Gospel is condemned by extremists as hate-speech.  Contemporary secular values are supplanting those of traditional faith and the Decalogue. 

The gender designations leave us scratching our heads: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual and intersexual.  Really, what does this all mean?

• Indoctrination without debate or questioning is demanded.
• Blatant advocates are deemed as level headed and right thinking.
• Sitting on the fence is interpreted as either cowardice or latent bigotry.
• A failure to render support or promotion for the cause is judged as injustice.

There is a not so subtle threat connected to all of this— accept a plurality of subjective genders and an ever expensive field of sexual expression— or else!  Give in or you will be sued. You will be stripped of your livelihood. A baker lost his home and business because he refused to bake a cake to celebrate a same-sex union. Win or lose, the court costs are astronomical. The ridiculous has become serious and real. Indeed, even liberals and feminists who fail to toe the line are being vilified.   The author of the popular Harry Potter books, J. K. Rowling, has been mocked and black-listed because she wants to make a case for the rights of women who were “born with vaginas.”

What becomes of the voice of the Church for justice and peace when she is increasing regarded (albeit falsely) as an organization that promotes injustice and discrimination? Many would undermine the efforts of Christians for ethnic and civil rights because they are unwilling to include sexual orientation along with demands for racial equality. We have already seen the women’s rights movement hijacked by greedy abortion providers and now by LGBTQIA+ proponents. They argue that you cannot have one without the other.  What is the real status of feminism and women’s rights when men as transgendered females can compete with ordinary women in swimming, track-and-field and kick boxing? Women’s records are falling right and left, and biological women are being shut out. Notice that there is no “S” in the alphabet soup for straight men and women. That which was once regarded as normal merits no celebration but is reckoned as the enemy or as a prospect for conversion. 

The targeting of children is real in this confrontation over gender. The idiocy would have teachers planting the seeds for confusion in curriculums that target youth as young as five years of age. If the proponents cannot effect change with their parents then they will focus on the upcoming generations. There is no more celebration of Mothers’ and Fathers’ Day because it is hurtful to those with a missing parent or same-sex parents. Valentine cards are forbidden because no one can be excluded. Condoms are given away by school nurses because it is expected that teens cannot control themselves and even many of the teachers have failed to wait until marriage.  We have eroticized childhood. Notice the direction taken with children’s television programming. Kids are breaking into romantic couples even prior to puberty. Further, today there is always the gay or lesbian in the mix, too.  

Those who oppose the stance of orthodox churchmen on the sexuality and gender questions are quick to charge them with unwarranted bias, ignorance and insensitivity. However, the last thing that any good shepherd wants to do is to inflict pain upon others.  They desperately want reconciliation and communion with all of God’s people. But tough love mandates that there are some concessions that can never be made.  A number of gay advocates, but not all, contend that monogamy and fidelity should count for something, even if bonds are judged as disordered.  However, just as with heterosexual sin and cohabitation, evils are not necessarily all violent or rude— there can be tremendous tenderness and intimate sharing in fornication and/or even adultery.  Same-sex unions may include real affection and love— but such elements cannot justify what is wrong. Indeed, such adds an insidious catalyst to the misbehavior, excusing harm caused to the beloved under a deceptive veil of caring and romantic love.  While sexual expression, both natural and unnatural, outside the covenant of heterosexual marriage may be consensual, it damages the soul and psyche as abusive behavior.    

We hear from gays, lesbians and others that the stance of the Church makes them feel unwanted and unloved. Indeed, some turn this anger against God for making them disordered or broken. This I can well understand as I often had tense prayers as a youth before God because of a struggle with asthma and breathing. I was always sick and often could not run and play with other children. Like Pinocchio, I prayed that I might be a real boy. Returning to the crisis at hand, those suffering gender dysphoria and disordered attraction would sometimes turn matters around and assert that their sexuality was okay and a gift to be celebrated, not scorned. The Church would affirm persons but that is all.  The Church could not pretend that a sexual disorder was normative. Certainly the shepherds of faith would never bless sinful acts as this would constitute blasphemy. 

A refusal to acknowledge the many subjective designations of gender and deviant sexual acts signifies no disrespect to personhood and our common humanity.  The Holy Father would have us accompany these souls in their faith journey. We can lament and cry with them. We can hear them out as our brothers and sisters.  But any dialogue will always find itself directed and restrained by the values and truths extracted from the sources of Christian doctrine. Jesus associated with tax collectors and sinners and yet he also called them to repentance and conversion. We must do the same.

While many churchmen have placed an emphasis upon fixing homosexuals, I suspect the better approach is in finding lawful and valid ways for them to move forward as they are. Further, if the rest of the Church is to learn anything from this, it may be not to soft-pedal heterosexual sin by comparison. Regardless of orientation, we should all focus on virtue and avoiding serious sin. Anyone who would “love” another into mortal sin is practicing a false or self-seeking love.  We should pursue grace and holiness for the beloved.  Here are a few propositions that might lead us out of the moral quandary where we find ourselves:     

• Affirmation of chaste loving familial relationships or special friendships;
• Dedication to celibate “brotherly” and “sisterly” bonds;
• Encouraging a vigorous spirituality of prayer and the sacramental life;
• Dedication to the faith in ongoing study, catechesis and evangelization; &
• Focusing on an apostolate of charity and service.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

It amazes me that the news media repeatedly invents news where in truth there is none.  Pope Francis affirms that homosexual acts are regarded by the Catholic Church as sinful. When was this ever in doubt.  (It should be added that the orientation is not sinful, just disordered.)  

Now a lot is being made of his admonition that we should demonstrate tolerance in not criminalizing same-sex relationships. Has anyone heard of any popes or bishops of late demanding the execution, imprisonment or even fines of outed gay people?  No, although Putin’s Russia has outlawed the LGBT community and many Islamic states target them for death, the Church would challenge them but respect their dignity and lives as persons loved by God.

Missed in the conversation is that “a lack of charity” for one another works both ways. Many in the homosexual community are not satisfied with the Church’s concessions and rudely demand nothing less than full approbation. However, this will never happen.

While I doubt any Church shepherds are actively campaigning for unjust laws, the Holy Father has asked for a movement of “conversion” among bishops in not tolerating or remaining passive to the criminalization and violent persecution of gays and lesbians. What the Pope says is true, that we are all “children of God” and he “loves us as we are.” However, this does not nullify the call to repentance and conversion which is constitutive of the Gospel. It would also not negate the termination of positions from parish and parochial schools because of poor Christian witness.

As a further instance of distortion in the news, much is made of the Pope’s support for same-sex civil unions (not marriages), stating that “homosexual people have a right to be in a family.” It may not be the ideal family, but we recognize many variations as with those that are missing a spouse or with grandparents within family units. The Church cannot sanctify sin so her ministers cannot bless same-sex unions or witness feigned marriages. However, there is some speculation that the Church might restore an ancient rite where people pledge themselves as chaste brothers and sisters to one another. The Church insists that sexual activity must be between a man and woman in marriage. However, the Church is no enemy of love.   

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

QUESTION

Does the Church teach anything definite about a future manifestation of the Mark of the Beast? How is the Mark unforgivable? Does this not conflict with the Church teaching that all sins are forgivable?

RESPONSE

You are referring to Revelation 13: 16-18: “It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a stamped image on their right hands or their foreheads, so that no one could buy or sell except one who had the stamped image of the beast’s name or the number that stood for its name. Wisdom is needed here; one who understands can calculate the number of the beast, for it is a number that stands for a person. His number is six hundred and sixty-six.”

Catholics are not fundamentalists and we would not take literally the symbolism of the Apocalypse. The beast signifies the pagan Roman emperors that persecuted early Christians, the single most being Nero. His name in Hebraic numerology is designated as 666. Many exegetes presume that the mark of the beast has to do with the coinage that bore his image. (Remember the incident when Jesus was asked about the legitimacy of taxation and he asked whose image was on a coin. When the answer came back Caesar he told his listeners to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. Of course, ultimately our loyalty and most everything belong to almighty God as the Creator.)

We belong not to the world or the Roman Empire but to Christ and his kingdom. We have a jealous God. He will not share us. We might live in the world but we must never forget that we are wayfarers and our true home is heaven. We may give human respect to the earthly community but we place our ultimate faith and find our values in the Lord.

The mark of the beast in the narrative is compelled and not voluntary. This mitigates responsibility. What is damning is that some worship the beast and thus violate the first of the commandments. Such strips one’s name from the Book of Life because we are only permitted to render worship to God. This work of true worship is perfected in the Mass. The so-called beast would urge idolatry and an abandonment of the Eucharist. We place our trust less in men and foremost in the Lord. Christ is the invisible head of the Church and the Pope is his vicar and the visible head. The beast and/or the anti-Christ would attack the Church and all who remain steadfast. As in the early Church, while there may be a reluctance to reconcile traitors to the faith, today the sacrament of penance is more liberally offered. Such has been the operation of the keys given to Peter and his successors. As long as one lives, there is the chance for repentance and absolution.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

OBJECTION

Anglican women now serve as both priests and bishops.  They preach well from pulpits and administer the Eucharist and other sacraments.  It is evident that the Holy Spirit enables and empowers their efforts.  Their church has been enriched, not impoverished, by their contribution.  We as Catholics should be ashamed of ourselves for dismissing the calling to ministry that women have received.

RESPONSE

How can you suggest that the experience of the Anglican “communion” has made this concern mute? Their church is dying, the priesthood and Mass are dubious, and heresy is rampant. The Episcopalian Australians have even pushed for an eradication of the priesthood altogether in allowing laity to preside at the Eucharist. The matter of women priests is tearing what ecclesial reality they possess to pieces. Their dire situation provides further evidence that the Catholic view is true. Their orders are null-and-void. Now many of their most devout and intelligent thinkers are agreeing with us. Indeed, their inrush into the Catholic Church raises fears about the possible restoration of the old anti-Catholic laws in England.

You wrongly claim that the heretics did the right thing in ordaining women. But their reasoning was false. Their appeal was more to a contemporary assessment of social justice than to revelation. Many of those seeking to justify the change in discipline appealed to Gnostic writings and a heretical interpretation of Galatians. They negated the value of the incarnation of Christ and disavowed his masculinity as having any role in his saving actions. They would also make unsubstantiated jumps in reasoning based upon frivolous arguments and suspect data, i.e. assuming that women referenced in apostolic communities were themselves apostles. 

The Anglicans reduce the faith to well-performed ritual and the recitation of the creed.  But when it comes to women priests, they reject the long-standing tradition and the wisdom of such saints as Augustine, John Damascene, and John Chrysostom against women priests. The legacy of the saints is given voice in the new catechism. Once you reject one tenant, the foundation for holding the rest is shattered. Such a faith becomes arbitrary and open to whim. Where is your burden of proof? Many of the Anglicans admitted that they did not have any. They were pressured and they gave in.

Galatians 3:28 is the verse that the Anglican Communion cites for the ordination of women. But the heretical Montanists did the same to rationalize their inclusion of women as priests and bishops. The truly catholic and orthodox churches saw through this deception. What applied to the baptismal priesthood of all believers could not be sustained for the ordained priesthood given the witness of Christ and that of the apostles, including St. Paul. 

My doubts made the priestly ministry increasingly burdensome and problematic. As a heterosexual, Bible-believing, Anglican Traditionalist, I found no affirmation in the Episcopal Church as it moved toward a radical revision of the Gospel, setting aside the Apostolic Tradition for its social justice agenda. Evidence of Anglican departure from the tradition is self-evident. Until 1976, even though a negative verdict had been rendered about the overall status of apostolic succession in Anglican orders due to Cranmer’s defective ordination rite in the Ordinal of 1550, only men were ordained to holy orders. The negative verdict of Apostolicae Curae (1896) had been mitigated or put into question because of the later participation of orthodox and Old Catholic bishops at certain Anglican ordinations. The Ordinal had also been corrected. Nevertheless, a second break arguably occurs in the modern era at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church when a vote is made to ordain women against the constant teaching of the Fathers and the Bible. Despite Ecumenical gestures by Roman Catholicism, everything was spurned so that women might be made clergy. Forcing this question upon the Catholic Church, Pope St. John Paul II closed the door to women priests with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994). The Church does not have the authority to change the tradition handed down from Christ.

Error builds upon error and the first woman ordained to the Anglican priesthood in the U.S. was a professed lesbian.  Later the floodgates would open the priesthood to active homosexuals. Indeed, the chief bishop for the U.S. was at one point a man who left his wife for his homosexual lover.  Anglicans had reduced what was a gift of God to one of many supposed rights in a social justice agenda.

Turning to Catholicism, we see something of this association between women’s ordination and lesbianism with the likes of the ex-nun and pseudo Catholic priestess Victoria Rue who tags herself as a “lesbian-feminist.” While she regards herself as Catholic, she is only invited to celebrate liturgies in Episcopal churches. All these so-called “Catholic” women-priests are in truth now Protestants. It is also my understanding that they are excommunicated, as is any legitimate Roman Catholic priest (male) that is involved with their fictional ordinations or consecrations as clergy. The ordination was attempted by former nun Christine Mayr–Lumetsberger, former nun Patricia Fresen, and Gisela Forster (a matronly wife and mother). They themselves claimed their spurious orders from the renegade Catholic Argentine Bishop Rómulo Antonio Braschi who joined a made-up church called the Catholic Apostolic Charismatic Church of Jesus the King.

Renewed demands for the ordination of women as priests in Catholicism echoes the developments in the Episcopalian churches.  Indeed, I am particularly worried that the new rallying cry for a synodal Church might hijack Pope Francis’ overture so as to transform a hierarchical body and make it democratic. However, such runs against the grain of the Church’s institution by our Lord. The truths of God are passed down from God and do not emerge from a consensus of people (weighted toward dissenters) who desire to vote their whims.   

The values of a secular humanist society are increasing asserting themselves against the Judeo-Christian teachings of the Church.  All this plays into the movement for women priests.  It is demanded by radical Marxist feminists who find themselves problematic bedfellows with the current gender dysphoria that is being forced upon us as normative and elective. While there is a pick-and choose style when it comes to the sources of revelation, there is an irony that St. Paul’s writings are used to promote women priests while they absolutely despise his moral exhortations and his demand for women to be silent in the churches. Scripture and Tradition are distorted and even rejected by the supporters of women’s ordination. They stamp as patriarchal and sinful the teachings of living popes and dead saints (including the Church fathers) that condemn women’s ordination as impossible. They argue that the priest shortage demands the ordination of women even though women’s vocations have been even more severely retarded and many ancient orders are disappearing. As a symptom of their clericalization of the Church, they also tend to dismiss the good and vital work that many lay women do for the faith, especially in parishes and schools. If there is not an outright hatred and distrust of men, there is nevertheless a tendency to gather like-minded women and to alienate men as co-workers in ministry or even in the pews. The Anglicans have seen vocations for men wither in the wake of women entering their priesthood. Men are forced out. This is deliberate as an effort, they claim, to make up for past imbalance and injustice.  The intrusion of a woman as a feigned priest distorts the meaning of the liturgy and invalidates both the Mass as a sacrifice and the Eucharist as the real presence of Jesus Christ.  

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

OBJECTION

Jesus was a Jew of his times and his selection of only men was not meant to be a perpetual exclusion of women from holy orders.  He complied with the social dictates of his times so that his apostles would be accepted and their message received.  Whenever he could he invited women into his circle of disciples and even commissioned them to service. The sisters of Lazarus were important to him as was Mary Magdalene and his Mother.  While men often emphasize the brokenness or sins of women in Scripture, the texts speak about healing and sending forth.  The sinner woman who anoints Christ’s feet and dries them with her hair is condemned by the eyes and whispers around them. However, Jesus commends her welcoming and acknowledgment of his presence; indeed, she heralds both his coming death and the kingdom. The Samaritan woman at the well is often preached upon as a bad girl who has compromised her chastity with various men.  But the Scriptures emphasize that she goes to her people as a prophetess and many come to believe in Jesus.  Her dialogue and faith profession is up there with Peter’s confession of the Christ.

RESPONSE

Jesus was not discouraged from including women among the twelve simply because it would have been too shocking. If it had been the right thing to do— the model Jesus wanted imitated— he would not have hesitated. Jesus was sensational in most things he did; why would he be inhibited here? We should not manufacture evidence for women priests where there is none. 

The only way that we could actually know that Jesus now wants to include women among his clergy would be for a new public supernatural revelation.  Given the past, there is not only insufficient evidence for such a change; the testimony weighs heavy against the inclusion of women in the priesthood of Christ. 

There are many female saints that have made important strides for the Gospel going back to apostolic times to the present. However, just because they have been exemplary in their witness, often outshining male disciples, this in itself does not mandate a change in sacramental discipline.  Church leaders struggle earnestly for ways to be more inclusive of women in decision-making positions and in ministries; but the model of priesthood is not open for debate.  We are locked in a particular pattern and the power of the keys is insufficient to make a change.  The Pope and the bishops are always servants of the Good News, not its masters.

The Holy Father has exerted his authority over that which he has personal say. The lay ministries of Lector and Acolyte have been opened to women, as has the new official ministry of Catechist. The diaconate remains off limits due to its sacramental nature and close association with the priesthood. But women have long been involved with the various works of the Church.  Indeed, they are engaged at church as readers, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, ushers, and musicians.  They not only cook and clean, but they work as rectory office managers and as directors of religious education. 

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »