The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
Pope Sergius III obtained the papal office by murder. He lived openly with a woman who bore him several illegitimate children. His reign began a period known as “the rule of the harlots.”
My response:
The allegation here goes beyond the certain facts. Consecrated in 904 and died in 911, most of what we know comes from the bias reports of his adversaries. Put forward for the papacy in 898, he failed to get elected and went into retirement. Unhappy that Christopher had taken the papacy by violence; the Romans imprisoned him and asked Sergius to take his place. He declared the ordinations by Formosus as null. Allegations that Sergius placed his two predecessors (Leo V and Christopher) to death or that he had relations with Marozia resulting in an illegitimate son (Pope John XI) are very dubious. The last charge was not made until fifty years after the death of the Pope. Such lies were told to damage his legacy and stand in conflict with what his trusted contemporaries said of him. He expanded the Church in England, defended the Filioque clause against errors of the Eastern churches and restored the Lateran Basilica. The so-called “rule of the harlots” had to do with the emergence of strong or influential women upon the world scene (Theodora, and her daughter Marozia, the mother of Pope John XI). This was viewed by a chauvinistic world as a reversal of the natural order.
Baghdad was once 25% Christian. Now that community has been devastated. Militant Islamic terrorists are taking over. Moderate Moslems are fleeing. Liberty and peace are again the victims. Did our military men and women die in vain?
The priest’s outburst was uncharitable and rude; however, is he being censured because of a lack of tact or because he spoke a hard truth about the scandal of sin and the lack of shame today? Guilt is good and serves a purpose, when we are guilty. How else might there be repentance, conversion and amendment of life?
A priest is pledged to face imprisonment, torture or even death before breaking the seal of confession. He can neither affirm or deny what sins are told him. This is serious business. If the courts win, priests could be imprisoned even for the most spurious of allegations or cases, and they would not be able to defend themselves. Stealing gum or committing murder… the seal is the seal. It is a sacred element of the sacrament.
I have trained myself to forget most everything I hear. But (in response to a specific inquiry) the seal would not even allow a priest to say he forgot, for that would imply he heard something. If a priest did recall instances of abuse, murder, etc., he might also not know for sure who told him (behind a screen) or the sins of many might become confused in his mind. No matter if he heard something bad or not, all the priest can do is either remain silent or remind everyone that he is not at liberty to talk about any confessions… period. His silence cannot be taken to mean that he has any damaging knowledge. The seal goes way beyond the professional secrecy of lawyers and doctors. If the priest breaks the seal, he is immediately excommunicated, forfeits his faculties, faces laicization and suffers the prospect of eternal punishment in hell.
The priest may tell the penitent to turn himself in and to get professional help. But the priest would not necessarily delay absolution until such action is made. The priest can urge restitution but often only has the penitent’s word that such would be made. However, even if there is no absolution, the seal applies. Further, the priest risks breaking the seal if he brings up another’s sins again in another setting. He is forbidden to nag penitents after confession about what they should or should not do. Again, the priest must forget and keep the seal. No matter how terrible the sin, the seal is absolute. Anyone who overhears a confession is also under the seal. Recording a confession is a serious sin and breaks the seal. Generally, priests must treat the penitent after confession as if he knows nothing about secret sins. There is NO wiggle room. He can give no hints or insinuations. NOTHING! He cannot break the seal to spare a child, to save a life or to safeguard the Eucharist. He cannot act on anything he hears in the Confessional. For instance, “he cannot show by facial expression or lack of hospitality at a parish picnic that he knows you suffocated your ailing rich grandmother with a pillow.” (No one said that being a priest was easy.)
Christians are being crucified. 3,000 Christians from Mosul are running for their lives. No Mass this Sunday in Mosul, for the first time in 1,600 years! Do we really appreciate what is going on?
Left unsaid are repercussions for the Anglican usage Catholics who may also want freedom of their tradition in this regard. Like dominoes, with increased visibility and reunion, people are going to question mandatory celibacy in Roman Catholicism. If these married men can make good priests, people will naturally ask, why must our men have this option closed to them? It is a can of worms that I would never open. Can we make a better and more persuasive case for an exclusively celibate clergy? Can we show that such bests reflects the divine will for the developmental trajectory of holy orders?
Again and again, Jesus is accused of performing his miracles through demonic agencies. It is never explained why the devil would want to give sight to the blind or make the cripple able to walk. The Pharisees commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by charging that Jesus drove out demons by the power of the prince of demons. It makes no sense. Jesus takes the opportunity to explain why it is important to be in unity with him. Our Lord would also give us a genuine warming about how the devil loves a vacuum. It is not enough to be cleansed or liberated. The space within us must be filled with God’s presence and grace. If God fills us then there is no corner where the devil can hide. The Pharisees would insist they are clean; however, their lack of charity and refusal to see the goodness in Christ and his works would demonstrate that the demonic had invaded their house. If demons are genuinely exorcised, no matter if it is by Jesus or other Jewish exorcists, the real agency is always Almighty God. There are false prophets, even today, who condemn Marian piety and the sacraments as the devil’s work. The devil always exploits spiritual blindness, hypocrisy and malice. These three vices parallel their antidote: genuine truth, sincere fidelity and charity.
Ritually unclean because of her bleeding, a woman touches the tassel of his cloak for a healing. She is desperate in that the doctors could not cure her, even after they took all her money. Given that she has suffered so for twelve years, it was a crime under Jewish law for her to approach the Lord. It represented a type of spiritual pollution. When Jesus asked who touched him, she was prepared for public condemnation. Women have been put to death for similar offenses. The crowd was pressing upon Jesus but he knew that power had gone out from him. She falls to his feet trembling. She witnesses to her healing and Jesus says to her, “Daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace.” He changes her life. Now she can have normal associations with others, not always afraid about being “cursed” by God. Her healing happens very casually. There are no longer prayers and elaborate gestures. She believes, touches him and is healed. It is enough sometimes just to be in the presence of God. Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains.
When it came to marriage, Jesus raised the bar and angered many. Indeed, there are still people upset with what he had to say about marriage, divorce, remarriage, adultery and the celibate life. He tells his listeners that Moses allowed a writ of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. However, this was not the way it was supposed to be. The pattern of Genesis was one man and woman, becoming one flesh, never to be torn asunder. Multiple wives and/or marriages were thus condemned. Divorce was absolutely prohibited. Women suffered under the law of divorce, often making a woman destitute in her abandonment. This would often force these women into adulterous relationships so that they could survive. Jesus saw the great injustice in this. Promises were made to be kept. Just as Christ would keep his covenant with his bride the Church, so too were other husbands and wives called to constant fidelity. When the disciples react to his words as hard to hear, saying it might be better not to marry at all, he says that celibate love is not given to all. But he does elevate a celibacy that renounces “marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Given that Jews associated divine blessing with wife, children and wealth; he was turning their accepted understanding on its head.
The real scandal was on the part of the crowd. While there was no charity to allow the paralytic to be carried into the house, they are moved by fear to allow the healed man to walk out. Jesus was moved by the faith of the men who lowered the poor man from the roof. What Jesus does is in response to their intercession for their friend. Instead of an outright physical healing, Jesus says to him, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” This angers the scribes and they condemn Jesus for blaspheming. After all, only God can forgive sins. It may be that the man’s soul was more afflicted than his body. Illustrating he had the authority to absolve from sin, he ordered the paralytic to get up and walk. The crowd is astounded and gives glory to God. And yet, do they perceive the full truth that in Jesus God had come to save his people?
Jesus goes to great length emphasizing that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood if we would have his life within us. His listeners murmur and quarrel about it. How can he say this? A good number abandon him, complaining that this teaching is too hard. Jesus then turns to his apostles and asks, are you going to leave me too? Peter responds, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Like us, Peter is saying the he does not understand it either; but if Jesus says it, he accepts it. Jesus was preparing them for the sacrament of the Eucharist that he would institute at his Last Supper. Some believers insist that Jesus only meant a figurative or symbolic presence. They refuse to accept a literal interpretation. However, the Jews understood the use of representational language. They abandoned Jesus precisely because Jesus was graphic and insisted on a REAL presence. Similarly, at the Last Supper, our Lord takes the bread and says it is his body. He takes the cup of wine and says this is the chalice of his blood. A new covenant is made. Covenants cannot be established with fake blood. There has to be a real sacrifice. Here too the emphasis is upon a substantial change. This caused great scandal among the Jews who were forbidden to taste blood. This is still a point of contention between Catholics and many Protestant believers. We continue to take Jesus for his word.
Jesus has been invited into a Pharisee’s home. But immediately we are told a sinner woman came to Jesus weeping and next bathed his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, kissed and anointed them. Simon the Pharisee is secretly scandalized. He thinks to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” Our Lord knows what is going through his mind and tells him a quick parable about two debtors, one owing more than the other. He asks, if are both forgiven “Which of them would love him more?” Simon answers it is probably the one with the larger debt. Jesus agrees and connects the parable and question to the woman. By comparison with Simon, she has demonstrated the greater love. He shocks everyone by saying that her sins are forgiven. Only God can forgive sins. There is a certain recrimination against Simon when Jesus says, “But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” He is challenging Simon to reflect upon his own spiritual state. Notice that this sinner woman had no trouble entering Simon’s house. How is that? I suspect it was because the servants recognized her and that she was regularly a visitor, not so much as a guest but for Simon’s secret pleasure. There is a story here that has been left unsaid.
There is a popular expression, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” While we might think that we can hide the truth about ourselves, and our sins, the truth is that we are largely transparent and God sees everything. Before charging others we should all admit that we are guilty and vulnerable. The scribes and Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman caught in adultery. The Mosaic Law required stoning to death, crushing and suffocating the person. Will Jesus insist upon the law or excuse sin? Jesus writes upon the ground. It has been speculated that Jesus was listing the secret sins of her accusers. He says let the one without sin cast the first stone. One by one they walk away. Finally, he is alone with her. Note that her accomplice in sin is nowhere to be found. Our Lord is aware of the double-standard and the hypocrisy of her accusers. As the innocent all holy one, he could rightfully condemn her. But instead he shows her mercy and tells her to go and “from now on do not sin anymore.” He did not say that what she did was right. Along with her absolution comes the admonishment to repent.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 