Blogger Priest

Still Struggling with Accompaniment

Posted on March 9, 2018 by Father Joe

152056519364959384

Catholics in irregular unions have been encouraged to receive spiritual communion at Mass despite their marital status. How is this even possible should they be absolutely ill-disposed to grace? Cardinal Kasper argues if they should be urged to receive the one then why not the other— the actual reception of Holy Communion. Should they be excluded from the Eucharist? He acknowledges that the reception of the Eucharist does not mean that they can contract a new “sacramental” marriage while the prior spouse is alive. This has not changed.

Regarding charges of a doctrinal shift, Cardinal Donald Wuerl stated in a letter, “No, the Church’s teaching has not changed; objective truth remains unaffected.” Similarly, Cardinal Müller has said in regard to the permanency of marriage that “This is a matter of a consolidated magisterial teaching, supported by scripture and founded on a doctrinal reason.” This embattled issue is the praxis by which we might seek to assist couples in irregular unions at moving toward a “new integration” into the Church that would respect both the dignity of marriage and make possible a restoration to the sacramental life. I would concur with Cardinal Gerhard Müller that efforts by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn and Cardinal Walter Kasper to reconcile a changed pastoral practice with traditional dogma in Amoris Laetitia (chapter 8) are not convincing. Cardinal Müller states, “Thus, a paradigm shift, by which the Church takes on the criteria of modern society to be assimilated by it, constitutes not a development, but a corruption.”

Cardinal Kasper cites five criteria for the proper disposition to receive Holy Communion:

Genuine sorrow or contrition over the failed bond;
Views the restoration of the prior bond as utterly impossible;
Appreciates that abandoning the second bond would incur new guilt;
Attempts to live the second marriage in the “context of faith”; and
Yearns for the sacraments of reconciliation and Eucharist.

These are not wholly the traditional requirements, which are: (1) being in the state of grace, 2) having fasted for one hour, and 3) appropriate devotion and/or attention. Pastorally I can sympathize with what he is trying to do; however, I cannot give my support to what must still be regarded as an adulterous union. Indeed, while there is tremendous sympathy for those who have entered into an irregular union, nothing is said about the abandoned and proper spouse. Where is the concern that the spousal support and affection that should come to him or her is instead given to an another, an interloper? Despite the context of feelings or emotions, there is an objective order that is not changed by sentiment or even by expressed sorrow. True contrition should lead to an amendment of life. It seems to me that this revisionist stance is a denial of personal heroism and a betrayal of the Church’s support, either for the abandoned spouse or should they both be culpable, for the valid marital union that is wounded.

Certain proponents contend that secular divorce should be weighed in the equation, a determination that is often required before annulment proceedings. The Church seems to give certain deference to secular authority over marriage and divorce even though that same authority does not acknowledge the Church’s jurisdiction. For instance, the courts have no reservation at rendering divorces, not merely for those married before civil magistrates, but for those whose marriages were witnessed before priests and deacons, as well. If there were mutual respect, then the state would abide by the Church’s rules and withhold divorces to Catholic couples until or if annulments were granted by ecclesial authority. But it is not going to happen. Indeed, the secular and religious definition of marriage daily becomes more divergent; we see this most clearly in the emergence of same-sex unions given the same legal gravity as bonds between men and women. Cardinal Kasper wants to give something of the importance rendered to valid unions to feigned marriages. His criteria are sufficiently vague; so much so that unqualified they would equally attempt to justify homosexual as well as heerosexual bonds. Applying the Cardinal’s categories: the gay person might be sorry about prior failed attempts at heterosexual union; view as impossible either celibacy or “living the lie” of a conventional bond; understand that abandoning the same-sex union would be painful and usher forth unbearable guilt and betrayal; seek to live the new bond with fidelity as they worship regularly as Catholics; and long to receive the sacraments and find acceptance. Would the Cardinal want his arguments stretched this far? The orthodox believer would argue that sex outside of a valid marriage is a sin. Further, our Lord tells us that marriage lasts until the death of a spouse. The Church defines marriage as an exclusive bond of unity and fidelity between a man and woman that is open to the generation of new human life.

Apologists for a change in discipline insist that we should redefine what is meant by adultery. I am doubtful that this is possible. The fact that those in irregular unions share tenderness for each other and display responsibility for children is indeed often quite true. But sin does not have to be utterly malicious. It can be subtle or even gentle. No one questions their capacity for love and compassion. However, does the good that one does for one eradicate the bad or the damage done to another?

As a bit of an aside, the movie and book SILENCE has a priest betray his faith so that the children and parishioners he loves might be spared torture and death. We understand as weak human beings what he does. However, we are also called to be saints. While we try to make a positive difference in this world, we set our sights on the coming kingdom. We are not promised perfect happiness in this world. There is no road to holiness that sidesteps the Cross. The priest in the story saved a few lives and his own, but did he cost them the faith and himself, his immortal soul? The Church would tell us that God sets the terms for salvation. Might the Church be on the precipice of betraying marriage just as a reputed change in Vatican policy to the Communists in China might betray the underground church? Do we really want this pontificate and time in the Church’s history to go down as the age when we surrendered to secular modernity? Returning to the subject of marriage and broken vows, are we not proposing that weakness and cowardice should be rewarded where we should be supporting courage and even martyrdom? I cannot mentally escape the story of Sir Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher. We allowed an entire empire and earthly kingdom to separate from the Church over the matter of a divorce. As one Anglican critic recently said, if this discipline should change, then the Church of England finally wins.

Seeking to be a good priest, I would never do anything to deliberately hurt parishioners or to precipitate scandal. Pastors of souls must keep professional secrecy and the seal of confession. We might urge people in private to refrain from Holy Communion because of unresolved sins, but we would not seek to publicly embarrass and/or to berate them should they reject our guidance. Behind the scenes, many priests quietly work with couples in irregular unions so that they might apply for annulments and hopefully have their unions con-validated by the Church. There are also couples, often older, who live as brother and sister. They need to be together but they also respect the teaching of Christ and the demands of the Church. All this is wholly different from the attitude that couples in irregular unions might be publicly invited by their pastors to full participation in the sacramental life while remaining in a second or third civil marriage. Does the need for penance and the Eucharist trump the sacrament of matrimony? How can this be when the sacrament of marriage is intimately associated with the covenant of Christ and his relationship with the Church, his bride?

I have struggled to appreciate Cardinal Kasper’s reasoning. Nevertheless, it still befuddles me. He asserts that nothing has changed because even if we allow those in irregular unions to receive absolution in confession and to take Holy Communion, they still cannot contract a new “sacramental” marriage while the prior spouse is alive. It perplexes me to no end as to why he does not see the inner contradiction. The logic he employs utterly escapes me. He seems to be making a distinction between a one-time sacrament and those sacraments which are regularly received again and again. But marriage is a sacred covenant with one’s spouse in Christ that is renewed regularly with the marital act whereby the two become one flesh. Sexual intercourse with anyone other than the spouse signifies not the renewal or consummation of the covenant bond, but rather, its betrayal. How can one betray the covenant of Christ in bed and then receive the Eucharist which is the new covenant in Christ’s flesh and blood? How can one be absolved from sins when the mortal sin of adultery remains undisturbed at the very center of life?

It should also be added that while the focus is often necessarily upon the sexual dynamic of marriage and fidelity; sexual or genital expression does not exhaust all the intimacies and duties that come along with marriage. Divorce and remarriage (or cohabitation) signifies a violation of the whole package of the bond. They are called to share a common life, to give daily comfort and companionship, and to be helpmates in finding their salvation in the Lord. Married couples are called to be best friends. No matter what comes, they are supposed to stand together. All these elements are violated with infidelity and divorce. As the Church struggles to delineate the boundaries of accompaniment; I plead that we do not forget the true spouse. In many cases, he or she might have been innocent and desiring to fight to make the marriage work. But it takes two and what is one to do when the other walks away. Often they suffer alone in silence, praying and loving a spouse that seems to have forgotten them— who now takes comfort and pleasure in another’s arms. As a priest I have counseled many such people. Faithful to the Church and to their conscience that the bond was true (meaning forever) they one-sidedly keep their shredded promises and do not date. Offspring are also part of the larger picture. Children from an abandoned family are made aware that their father has started a new family. They wonder within their sorrow and tears, why does he love them more than us?

My pressing personal concern is beyond the temporal or pastoral and admittedly, is somewhat selfish. If I should invite those in irregular unions to take the Eucharist and/or to be absolved in the confessional; would I be compromising my own soul by enabling or condoning mortal sin? I can appreciate “accompaniment” but like the men on the road to Emmaus, I would like to see them turn around. I do not want to walk unashamedly with adulterers, even very cordial and pious ones, into the flames of perdition. Of course, it is possible that they might be saved by their ignorance of the truth; just as I might be condemned for my certainty about it. Wouldn’t that take the cake!

Filed under: Adultery, Confession, Eucharist, Marriage, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

[29] Third Sunday of Lent

Posted on March 3, 2018 by Father Joe

152017828213757097 (3)

Readings: Exodus 20:1-17 / Psalm 19 / 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 / John 2:13-25

Our first reading from Exodus has the presentation of the Decalogue, and so I would like to present some of my reflections on the Ten Commandments that I usually share with those taking formal religious instructions. I will also speak to the catechetical over the Scriptural listing, as the incarnation of Christ has abrogated the prohibition against graven images. Christ is the human face of God. He is the revelation of our heavenly Father.

The first commandment reminds us that ours is a jealous God; there is no other before him. He is the one and only! He does not want us wasting our lives on false gods or empty superstitions. Even though there may not be many traditional worshipers of idols cast in stone or bronze, or of figures from nature like the sun or animals, this prohibition is still violated. We see this in dangerous occult toys, like tarot cards and Ouija boards. These things are hazardous to our souls because they sidestep God’s dominion over us and his will for us. They might even invite spiritual evil to penetrate our lives. This commandment also condemns sacrilege whereby persons, places, or things sacred to God are defiled. Even interest in the popular horoscopes can sometimes escalate beyond simple curiosity and become habitual false guides. God wants us to follow him alone.

The second commandment urges us to treat God’s name respectfully. This necessarily prohibits blasphemy, making false oaths in God’s name, and cursing.

The third commandment tells us to make the Sabbath day holy. For Christians, this obligation is transferred to Sunday. (It is interesting that most Protestant religions accept at least this one precept or legislation of the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, along with our Jewish brethren, they would respect it on Saturday.) We sanctify this day by prayer, worship, avoiding unnecessary work, rest, and joy. Therefore, something like failing to participate at Mass on Sunday is not merely a violation of the laws of the Church, but in a very direct manner, an infringement upon this commandment to give God his due.

The fourth commandment exhorts us to respect our parents by loving and helping them, especially when they are in need. While young and under their immediate authority, children must obey their parents. Reciprocally, parents must give a Catholic education to the children entrusted to them. Their spiritual and material welfare is essentially in their hands. The parents may extend or endow school teachers and others with something of their own authority. This commandment speaks to us in a less direct way about authority in general. All just authority comes from God. We are called to obey spiritual and civil authorities when they make legitimate demands. However, if there is a conflict between the laws of human beings and those of God, God comes first.

The fifth commandment prohibits us from either harming our own bodies or those of others. This commandment expands beyond murder or suicide to the various partial degradations: including such things as mutilation, striking another, harmful drugs, drunkenness, and carelessly taking risks with our lives. Abortion is a direct violation of this commandment. Our right to choose should never be deemed a higher priority than another person’s right to life.

The sixth commandment, taken alone, forbids all external sins against chastity. Once sexual activity is condoned outside marriage, as in fornication, it is logically difficult to confine afterwards, as in adultery. The premise is already adopted. Some fifty percent of the couples who live together prior to marriage eventually get divorced. The seed for failure is already planted. Sin is a mighty poor preparation for the nuptial sacrament. Considered with the ninth commandment, all interior sins against chastity are likewise condemned. The human sexual powers are given for the propagation of children and for the fidelity of a man and woman in marriage. Outside of marriage, it is a great evil to exercise these powers, which are not simply expressions of our flesh, but of our very persons— who we are! Inside marriage, these powers must not be distorted in their purpose or in the motivation of two people in love drawn to union. Lust, even in marriage, is a sin and degradation to what it means to be truly human. It re-categorizes the beloved from a personal subject to an impersonal object. Instead of self-sacrifice and surrender— thinking of the other’s needs and happiness— we selfishly treat the other as a disposable thing with which we can seek our own gratification. If the beloved is no more than an object, then the stage is set for adultery because objects are interchangeable. This is the antithesis of the Gospel. Marriage is called to be a permanent union. Adultery is a gross violation of that permanent union which is to reflect the fidelity between Christ and his bride, the Church. The adulterer plays the role of Satan who would lure us away from our divine groom and from the wedding banquet of heaven.

The seventh commandment rejects stealing and dealing unjustly with another. Even if we accept stolen goods, we have broken this commandment. All sorts of things fall under this heading: idling, charging unfair interest, not paying debts, not giving a just salary, and stealing someone’s good name. Restitution is demanded in cases where we have stolen or damaged the goods of others. This last matter draws this commandment to the eighth.

The eighth commandment would have us be a people of truth and good will. We are not to lie or to slander others. If we stumble into this sin, then we need to repair the damage caused by our falsehoods.

The ninth commandment, as mentioned under the sixth, requires us to be mindful of our thoughts. To occupy ourselves with sexual fantasies regarding others, not only breaks down our will in reference to actions, but degrades the one whom we are imagining. This is destructive to the dignity of the person who is reduced to an impersonal object in obscene films and other pornography.

The tenth commandment, like the ninth, reminds us that God wants our conversion, both in external action and in our internal disposition. To be open to the grace of his presence, we must free ourselves from within, of those persons or things which we might covet before God. In actuality, we might not commit a sin against justice, but we might “want” to do it. Even this needs to be weaned away. We need to reach a point in our spiritual life where we do not WANT to steal from or to hurt another.

God establishes his law with his people. Fidelity to the commandments realizes the covenant with God. Disobedience is more than breaking rules; it severs a saving relationship with the Lord. The full revelation of God and the expansion of his covenant relationship, as the apostle Paul says in the second reading, are in Christ Crucified. The Gospel gives us the shocking scene where Jesus whips the money-changers out of the temple and upsets their tables. He complains that the temple which is a place for worship and sacrifice has been made into a marketplace or even worse, a den of thieves. When asked by what authority he casts them out, he in return challenges them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” They mistakenly think he is referencing the building around them when he really means his body. Long before, the actual tablets of the law and the ark had been lost. Jesus is the new covenant but he is not made at home in the Jewish temple. Within seventy years the temple will be demolished by the Romans. Two thousand years later it is still gone, all but the retaining or wailing wall. Jesus was crucified but the temple of his body rose from the tomb. As mentioned last week, Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. We are all called as believers to be obedient to Jesus and to enter into his temple, the Mystical Body.

Are there certain commandments that we routinely violate?
Do we give God his due in daily prayer, Mass participation and witness?
Do we follow the commandments mechanically or within Christ’s command to love?
While expressed negatively, how might you make the commandments into positive statements?
Do we respect the new temples of the Lord: Christ present in us by grace, in our homes by holiness, in our tabernacles as sacrament, in the Scriptures as the living Word, and in the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ?

Filed under: Commandments, Homily | 1 Comment »

Clarity in a Sea of Confusion

Posted on February 28, 2018 by Father Joe

muller

Filed under: News, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Dr. Dolores B. Grier, Rest in Peace

Posted on February 27, 2018 by Father Joe

28377466_10155447127123435_1767984721393134454_n

Sir Knight Reginald Grier informed us that his sister, Dr. Dolores Bernadette Grier, died in New York City on February 22, 2018, her birthday. She was 91 years old.

The late Cardinal O’Connor of New York appointed Dr. Dolores Bernadette Grier as the first lay woman to be a vice chancellor of the archdiocese. Dolores Grier’s appointment as vice chancellor for community relations in 1985 was national news as she achieved several firsts. Not only was she the first lay woman, but she also was the first black American in the U.S. to be appointed a vice chancellor. She also became the first lay woman named to any chancery post in the archdiocese.

When Grier was a teenager she converted to Roman Catholicism. She graduated with a master’s degree in social work from Fordham University. In 1980 she heard a “persuasive, dynamic speech in defense of all human life from conception” by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and credits this speech with bringing her into the pro-life movement. She lamented in her book, DEATH BY ABORTION, the course Jackson took in his career by saying, “Regrettably, Rev. Jackson joined the Democratic political party and adopted its pro-abortion/pro-choice platform. Too many legislators, Republican and Democratic, have chosen to walk on the ‘comfort zone’ bridge of pro-choice, thus turning their backs on the unborn human beings, perhaps because they are not yet voters or members of a political action group.”

In 1993 the New York City branch of the NAACP selected her to be the recipient of the Women’s History Month award, she refused it and membership because of the organization’s pro-choice stance on abortion. “As president of the Association of Black Catholics,” she wrote, “I believe abortion to be a racist weapon of genocide against black people. It has been thrust upon black women as a solution to their economic crises, confusion and concern.”

She had a television program on BLACK CATHOLICS and was a long-time EWTN spokesperson and close friend of the late Mother Angelica. She was a nationally known African American pro-life activist and non-fiction author. She also orchestrated the PROUD TO BE ROMAN CATHOLIC effort in New York. Dr. Grier sat on the Board of Advisors of the Catholic League and was founder of Black Catholics Against Abortion. She wrote, “Yesterday they snatched babies from our arms and sold them into slavery, today they snatch them from our womb and throw them into the garbage.”

I met her on several occasions and she was a wonderful lady and true disciple of Christ. Rest in peace.

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Evangelization, Obituary, Pro-Life, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

[26] Second Sunday of Lent

Posted on February 25, 2018 by Father Joe

151976741619345650 (1)

Readings: Gen. 22:1-2, 9a, 10-13, 15-18 / Ps. 116 / Romans 8:31b-34 / Mk. 9:2-10

An important traditional demarcation of the ancient Jews from their pagan neighbors was the repugnance they felt toward human sacrifice. Rather, they offered the grains of the field or animals like goats, sheep, bulls and birds. However, more recent archeological evidence shows that the early Jews did at one time offer the oblation of human beings. The remnant texts that point to such behavior are the testing of Abraham and the story of Jephthah’s daughter. The story of Jephthah’s daughter can be found in Judges 11:29-40. Like our passage today, it is deeply disturbing. The Hebrew general pledges that the first who steps out the door of his home, he will sacrifice. He immediately laments his pledge because out steps his young daughter. She requests a short time to mourn her virginity and then we are told he did as he promised. Unlike the story of Abraham and Isaac, it appears that God does not stay his hand. The young girl had courage and her father kept his promise to God; but as Christians, we are aware that some promises should not be made. The child mourns that she will never know the joys of being a wife and mother. It is a poignant and terrible story.

Just as the story of Abraham and Isaac prefigures God’s surrender of his Son; the story of Jephthah’s daughter is connected to the Virgin Mary. Mary gives herself to perpetual virginity and undergoes a vicarious martyrdom in witnessing the passion and death of her Son. Jephthah was a great Jewish general. He was successful against tremendous odds. He was victorious not because of his oath, but in spite of it. As St. John Chrysostom would tell us, his repugnant act would move the Jews to renounce all such blood-oaths from that time forward. Regarded as a testing of Abraham’s faith, a messenger from heaven intervenes and God directly prohibits the sacrifice of Isaac. This would plainly show that God does not delight in such sacrifices.

Abraham certainly did not comprehend the command to sacrifice Isaac. It seemed to violate providence, itself. The patriarch was elderly and his son was the child of promise from which he was supposed to generate many descendants. He did not understand but he remained faithful. It is that element and not the shocking act that we should fully reflect upon. God stays the hand of Abraham but he would not spare his own Son, the child promised from the dawn of creation. Our heavenly Father did not directly will that his Son should be tortured and murdered; but he did desire faithfulness. Jesus is faithful to his mission unto the Cross. Abraham substitutes the oblation of a ram. When God spared us (signified by Isaac), Jesus substitutes himself for us as the divine Lamb of God. The sacrifice is no longer a ram caught in the briars but a Savior crowned with thorns.

The sacrifice of human beings by the pagans would be regarded by the early Christian community as a feeding the bloodlust of demons. We might think that we are morally better and enlightened, but over a million unborn children are aborted in the United States annually. Many ministers regard this as a return of the demonic sacrifices of old. Are we feeding demons the blood of our children?

The responsorial speaks to our conviction as believers during the season of Lent: “O LORD, I am your servant; I am your servant, the son of your handmaid; you have loosed my bonds. To you will I offer sacrifice of thanksgiving, and I will call upon the name of the LORD.” Catholics readily make the connection between Christ as the suffering servant and Mary who declares herself as “the handmaid of the Lord.” Jesus offers his life that we might be released from the bonds of Satan. Our Lord will pay the price of his life to set us free. Mother and Son will meet on Calvary. The sacrifice of Jesus will do what all prior oblations failed to do— make true and lasting atonement for sin.

The second reading reiterates today’s theme: “If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, how will he not also give us everything else along with him?” Paul is speaking about the gift of hope that comes with faith. The victory over sin and death has already been won.

The Gospel reading gives us the scene of the Transfiguration. Our Lord is dressed in dazzling white and beside him stands Elijah and Moses. This signifies that Jesus is the fulfillment of the LAW and the PROPHETS. The transformation in Jesus might be interpreted as a sign of things to come, notably the resurrection. Lest it should be misunderstood, Jesus tells his three apostles not to speak about what they have seen until “the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” We are told that they questioned what was meant by “rising from the dead.” The apostles really could not get their heads around our Lord’s prophesies about his passion and death.

There is an important but sometimes overlooked element to the reading that we today should take to heart. The heavenly Father’s voice beckons from the cloud, “This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.” Jesus is the ultimate term for salvation. It is his sacrifice that is saving. Given that he buys us back with his own life, we belong to him. If that be the case, then it must be realized with faith and an abiding obedience.

What sacrifices have you made in your life to realize your discipleship?
Do you appreciate that every Mass is a re-presentation of the oblation of Calvary?
Have you placed limits on your faith and what you would do in response to God’s calling?
How have you died for Christ and others, brushing aside selfishness?
Do you listen and obey God’s Son or have you substituted other authorities?
Do you put a premium upon human life, both in and out of the womb?

Filed under: Homily, Jesus, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

We are Men and Women, Not Angels

Posted on February 22, 2018 by Father Joe

15192255957185427 (2)

Biology uses the word “species” to refer to us as “homo sapiens.” Thomistic philosophers sometimes use it in a different way, speaking of our species as human, albeit as composites. Angels and human souls are without matter, but every material composite has two parts, prime matter and substantial form. The substantial unity of a composite being demands that there can be but a single substantial form. The substantial form in human beings, men and women, is the soul. This soul is exclusive of any other soul. However, we are kindred to one another as a species or class. Material composites know individuation because of their extension or dimensions. By contrast, angels have no matter and are not composites; thus, every angel as a spiritual entity is a distinct species unto itself.

There is no marriage between angels. There is no reproduction. There is no complementarity of gender. All we can say is that they may have traits that we usually associate with one gender over another. But even that may be an oversimplification. What do we know of what angels do or angelic character? When we try to figure them out we illustrate them as naked human bodies with wings attached.

Why do I make such obscure academic observations? It is because many seem to be confusing the human with the angelic. What makes us human men and women is fixed; nevertheless, many are arguing that gender is simply a matter of choice. While it would not include the quality of gender, angels by their intellect and will determine their unique species at the moment of their immediate creation outside of space and time. We come to exist in time and within material creation. We classify pure spirits as angels and even rank them but no one angel is like any other. Some transgender people today are treating their humanity in a similar way, refusing to be labeled as either male or female. But do they have this authority, particularly since gender seems to be fixed? Do they have freedom or choice to embrace legal fictions?

Gender identification is today often called into question and debated. Growing numbers seem to suffer from a sexual disorientation. Many feel that they have a gender sense that is in conflict with their bodily composition. Some have sought to have a legal designation to reassign their gender. Others have sought through surgery or chemical intervention to change their gender. The Church would traditionally view such efforts as absurd. The divine determination is taken for granted. You are what you are… every body part and every cell… your basic DNA… all of it speaks to your identity as a man or woman. This is the lens through which we know ourselves and how we look upon the world. We relate as men and women in all our associations and friendships, even in our chaste relationships.

Gender is a differentiation we share with others. Men and women are human but they come in two sexes. These qualities are combined with many others, some shared and others unique to our identity. Here I speak not so much about the accidentals that distinguish us but rather those qualities or elements that defy measurement or calibration. We are finite creatures but the spark of the infinite both gives us life and keeps us in existence.

Filed under: Reflection, Religion, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

The Mystery of Gender Permeates Body & Soul

Posted on February 21, 2018 by Father Joe

151909038040016754

An accepted tenet of my classical training is that substantial forms inform all prime matter. It is within this sphere that we usually discuss creation. Christians believe in an ordered universe. God is the source for an intelligent design. We are not the result of a cosmic accident. The substantial form is where we locate the properties and unity of an object. The substantial form for the human person is the immortal soul. If this soul organizes our constitution and gives us our identity then the soul must also include the element of gender. Sexuality is not isolated to the body. There is also a spiritual component. There is no generic human soul and then male or female accidental renderings of humanity. Unlike the substantial forms of things, each human soul while having commonality with others is unique. Since the human soul has no parts it is indestructible and survives the death of the body. We will be reconstituted in accord with our souls.

Separatist or dualist theologians argue against traditional Christian sexual morality because they treat the person as an operator in a robotic body. The soul is distinct and not necessarily connected to the body. They do not regard the body as the real you. Materialists might have some regard for natural law, but often contend that morality is whatever men want it to be. They argue that there is no soul that actuates or vivifies you. They further insist that there is no spiritual operator running a robotic body— there is only the body. Since they judge everyone as merely thinking and loving meat, there are no eternal consequences for our actions to worry us. They would say do as you want because tomorrow you will be nothing but worm-food.

My own view is one of an intense integralism. While we are spiritual-corporeal composites, I would place a greater weight upon the composite itself over the body and even the soul. Bodies without souls are corpses. Souls without bodies are ghosts. Neither is a condition to which I look forward. Our hope in Christ is for the resurrection of the dead, body and soul. Not angelic beings, it is essential to our personhood and identity that there be a restoration. The soul is a higher principle in that it has no parts that can break down. However, our constitution is set as a creature that bridges the material and spiritual worlds. We are not mere animals. Alternately, we seem to have little or nothing in the way of angelic powers. Just as the soul informs the body; the body shares information with the soul. There are apparent parallel operations between the intellect of the soul and the elements of mind and intelligence found in the organic (the brain). There is an interposition between the spiritual and material. Soul and body function as a profound unity. I suppose this is why spouses can speak of each other as soul-mates. There would be no marriage if men and women were not sexual beings. However, this meaning cannot be reduced to the same denominator that defines cats, dogs, horses and other animals. There is a transcendent factor that permeates the central axis of persons. Everything the soul or body wants or does reverberates in the other. Gender or sexuality permeates the whole.

Filed under: Reflection, Religion, Sexuality | Leave a comment »

Sexuality is Who You Are Not What You Do

Posted on February 20, 2018 by Father Joe

We are sexual beings. Even the celibate knows himself as either male or female. The word sex is often wrongly reduced to activity. It is actually expressive of our identity or who we are. It is for this reason that the U.S. Bishops went forward with the “Marriage Matters” campaign against so-called same sex marriage. Marriage is an exclusive bond between a man and a woman.

Reductionists perceive sexuality as an action and one that can be measured or judged. It sacrifices the element of mystery as a quality of a person’s inner being. It is also narrowed to consequences. Pregnancy and birth are inhibited as one would a disease. The prospect of a stable or singular relationship is often spurned in favor of momentary pleasure or a thill that might employ any number of sexual partners or none at all. People “have” sex instead of “being” their sex.

I recall a paperback fantasy story (the title escapes me) in which those cast in hell became more bestial. Everything and everyone became more eroticized in hell. Women became more endowed in breasts and curves. The men discovered that their genitals grew and they lost almost all self-control. One man tried to sneak into heaven but raced back to hell when he observed the gradual disappearance of his male sex organs. Despite these peculiar elements, the author tried to avoid the more grievous vulgarities in his composition so as to promote certain moral truths. While interesting fiction, I would contend that he got the situation basically wrong. We become more and not less of what we are with judgment in the afterlife; men and women in heaven will never stop being male or female. Joseph is still the foster “father” of Jesus and Mary will always be the blessed “mother” and the New Eve. There will be no concupiscence in heaven. There will be no marrying or giving in marriage— except for the marriage banquet of the Lamb. There will be perfect self-control. There will be unity in Christ. We will relate to one another as brothers and sisters, men and women— not as sexless drones.

While angels may be without gender, such is not the state of human beings. Male and female is how we are made and it is how we will be remade. God’s grace will perfect us but we will still be who and what we are. The divine economy will give us a share in immortality but God will not unmake our identity.

Frequently in these arguments, critics will point to St. Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ “there is neither male nor female.” This does not mean that men and women are interchangeable or utterly the same. What it does say is that men and women alike are called by Christ to be disciples. We all have the capacity for faith and to benefit from the saving graces of baptism. I have engaged in past debates where critics used this passage to argue for women’s ordination. However, it does not apply to anything more than our universal priesthood in baptism. The tradition coming down from Christ and the apostles is that the ordained priesthood is reserved to men. Men are seen as living icons for Christ. They signify the divine bridegroom at the altar with the Church as his bride. A woman priest would suffer from the same critique as would same-sex marriages: the marriage analogy would be transformed into a lesbian caricature that could only feign priesthood. The true priesthood, the Mass and sacramental absolution would be lost. Gender is not an accidental element but a substantial quality of human identity.

Filed under: Marriage, Religion, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

An Over-sexed World Does Not Understand Sex

Posted on February 19, 2018 by Father Joe

151898139878378649 (2)

Analogies scratch at the surface of truth and reality. Nevertheless, they do allow a certain degree of illumination. We speak of heaven as an eternal banquet. We view the relationship of Christ to his Church as akin to the marital bond of a husband to his wife. Just as there can be no gluttony in heaven, neither can there be lust. The imperfections in human desires and activities can have no part to play in their eternal dimension. While we are broken, the moral life demands that we strive toward something of the perfection that awaits us. Food means physical life. Marriage means the life of children. Food gives satisfaction. Marriage brings the joy of marital union. God will sustain us and he will feed us with his very self. Ultimately, the measure of our unity is within the peace of Christ.

It may be that marriage finds itself in trouble within the modern world because people do not know what marriage and sex is really about. Failure to appreciate the truth damages relationships and makes the marriage analogy incomprehensible. There is confusion because many refuse to admit that they might be wrong. Just as certain virgins are anxious about telling others about their inexperience; those with active sex-lives may be reticent to admit that they are regularly engaged in something that they really do not understand. Persons are often reduced to a means to a selfish end. Sex is treated as recreation or as something to release tension. While it should be expressive of a bond, it should not be regarded as bondage. The abuse of sexual union leads to a whole assortment of ills. That which should draw people together and make possible personal integrity can inadvertently fragment personalities and cause rifts of infidelity and frustration. If one has a negative experience of sexual behavior, particularly when it is abusive, then how can he or she imagine that it is good, joyous and holy? There may be no sexual intercourse in heaven; however, this does not mean that such loving coupling cannot point to a profound intimacy between the divine and the communion of the saints.

Our culture is erotically saturated. Pornography has gone largely mainstream. Sex pollutes the media entertainments and advertising. Many people claim that they have to have it, giving impetus to a drug market where all sorts of dysfunction cures are prescribed. Nevertheless, while there is a focus on fantasy and the mechanics of human sexuality; there is a paucity of reflection upon ultimate meaning and the theology of the body. If human sexuality is reduced to an accidental then it might no longer matter… serial marriages, multiple partners, same-sex unions, fornication and even adultery are shifted to the periphery of social life with minimal moral importance. However, the traditional Western philosophical and religious critic would lament that this is all a lie. Human sexuality is not accidental and gender is not interchangeable. There must be a genuine complementarity, sufficient gravity in importance and a lasting permanence. Our gender identity is a core substantive element. The union of men and women is not between two half’s but rather two whole’s. It builds upon who they are, making them (together) something new.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Reflection, Religion, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

The Dark Secret

Posted on February 18, 2018 by Father Joe

What is the presumed dark truth that remains largely unspoken by the churchmen desiring a “paradigm shift” in reference to those in irregular unions being invited to receive the sacraments, i.e. the Eucharist and the penitential absolution?

151898139878378649 (1)

I suspect that despite objections to the contrary, they really do not believe that there is any lasting bond (sacramental, natural or spiritual) associated with the marriage of men and women. There was a priest I knew, died some years ago, who ridiculed the very notion that there was a lasting spiritual change in the spouses akin to the sacramental character imprinted upon the soul of men ordained to the priesthood. While I agreed that sacerdotal ordination was “forever” and that marriage was “until death do they part,” he spurned the notion of any real but invisible tie between spouses other than a psychological one. His view seemed to me as overly Anglican, as does the Orthodox compromise of penitential marriage. My thinking upon the question remains unchanged.

Marriage is a perpetual bond. Our Lord insists that it remains in effect as indissoluble as long as the spouses are alive. Further, while marriage ends at the threshold of this world and the next, we should all appreciate in Christ that love is stronger than death. There is something about the connection that changes spouses in an irrevocable way. They might marry again after a spouse dies; but a mysterious quality remains from the first union. Something changed with the bond that does not revert back to what it was before. Given that marriage is reflective of Christ’s relationship with his bride, the Church, this struck me as a necessary truth. Our Lord will never abandon or divorce his Church. Spouses give something to the beloved that is singular and that creates a union that is unique and unrepeatable. A second marriage may have its own value and particular traits; however, while not maligning a second chance at love, the first bond (if real, and in certain cases even when suspect) has a residual or lasting impact or impression. I am talking about more than mental memories; it is as if the body itself has its own remembrance. Further, what we do in the flesh has a powerful interplay with the human soul and identity.

Matthew 19:3-9:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

C. S. Lewis has this to say in Letter 18 of The Screwtape Letters:

The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh.” He did not say “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love,” but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh.” You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear, and desire which they call “being in love” is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because “being in love” does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemy’s designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly-colored and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Reflection, Religion, Sexuality, Sin | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »