An important theme for this blog is the scene in the New Testament where Jesus can be found FLOGGING the money-changers out of the temple. My header above depicts a priest FLOGGING the devils that distort the faith and assault believers. The faith that gives us consolation can and should 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.
The Christian humanism of Catholicism is an acknowledgment of God’s handiwork and the beauty of creation. Although humanity is fallen, there remains beauty to men and women as made in the “image of God.” As the stewards of creation, human beings are a composite of flesh and spirit. While we share with animals a material body, we have infused souls that possess intellect and will. We can know and love. Beyond the sentiment or appetites of beasts, we are self-aware and know that we know. Further, God has wired us for himself, and we reach out toward the divine and to each other. What we know— we can love. While it might sound ridiculous or dare I say blasphemous, even the man who is damned remains a masterpiece of intelligent design. As if this were not enough, the incarnation of Christ grants our human nature a far greater dignity. Creatures of God properly become his children. Divine grace restores what was lost and adds a unity with the living Word as the center of creation— we abide in the “sure and certain” hope of our salvation as adopted sons and daughters of the Father, kin to Christ and children of Mary. We are remade into the “likeness of God” wherein the heavenly Father sees his Son in us.
Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical, MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS, is addressed as a caution, not simply to believers, but to a larger world that does not share our faith or understanding of Christ. While targeting the challenges posed by artificial intelligence, it is a warning for us all not to lose sight of the humanity we all share. The Holy Father has not authored a treatise into the many intricacies of Christian anthropology. No one should interpret the encyclical as a denial of the Christocentric focus of the Church’s teachings. Indeed, the Pope writes in the very first paragraph of his letter, the following: “Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is ‘only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.’ In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.”
Certain dissenters on the left will not like the reference to the Tower of Babel since it insinuates a confrontation with modernity, which many of them make into an idol. Apologists for the hardliner traditionalists will reject it just as they did Vatican II, Pope Paul VI’s DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (religious liberty), Pope John Paul II’s EVANGELIUM VITAE and Pope Francis’ DIGNITAS INFINITA. One of the great failings of schismatic traditionalists is their resistance to granting human dignity an incommensurate value. The universal catechism offers us a wonderful corrective: “Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead” (CCC 357).
Human dignity is rooted first in creation. This is a hallmark of the Gospel of Life. Made in the image of God, this standing comes with conception and cannot be stripped away from living persons. Second, the incarnation of Christ takes this dignity to the next step, elevating our common humanity. The offer of his life is expressive of the value that the Lord places in us. Jesus desires that we might share in his divine love and life.
The SSPX has from its beginnings been guilty of presumption in judging the Holy See and the heavy consensus of the many bishops who participated at Vatican II. Why they cannot see their terrible arrogance about this is a matter hard to understand. They suggest that there has been a break with the past when the best minds in the Church demonstrated organic development regarding essentials and needed changes to accidentals to respond to modernity. Had the issue only been the liturgy this impasse would have ended long ago. But it is so much more, particularly about ecclesiology and soteriology. They would reduce the magisterium to a political congress to which they alone would have an absolute veto. No, this cannot be permitted and their upcoming consecration of bishops will signify not merely the widening of a rift but the formal institution of a new offshoot or ecclesial reality like the Anglicans and the Greeks before them. They hide behind the abandoned artifacts of history, heralding tradition, while refusing to honestly engage with a changing world. They feign fidelity while dissenting from the authority of the living magisterium.
It is ironic that they appeal to “conscience” for their fractured communion when they formally reject the expansion of its definition at Vatican II. They accuse the Holy Father and the post-Vatican II Church of heresy, “destroying Catholic faith and morals.” If the reforms attest to the movement of the Holy Spirit, then they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, a sin regularly committed in their attack against the Novus Ordo Mass as evil and dangerous. They spurn canon law as being used to undermine the holy faith. The law of just authority applies to all except themselves.
Fidelity to the Catholic faith is more than “devotion,” it is measured by obedience to the Pope and the living magisterium. The declaration reverses reality and presumes that the SSPX is the true Church to which the Holy See must be in communion. This is utter nonsense! What are their “indispensable” faith capitulations for juridical reunion?
One Covenant That Does NOT Include the Jews, YES or NO?
It is true that the Catholic faith is the one true Church instituted by Christ. But the SSPX refuses to acknowledge contemporary Jews as children of Abraham. As far as they are concerned, the old covenant first established with them as God’s people was rendered “definitively null and void” some two thousand years ago. The implication of their faith profession is that they are guilty of deicide and that by extension the Moslems (along with them) are now children of Satan who reject Christ as the Messiah. It is no wonder that this negative assessment includes allegations of collective guilt as enemies of the Church for the death of Christ, antisemitic slander about clandestine Jewish influence for world dominion and even denial of the Holocaust atrocities. The SSPX thoroughly rejects the Nostra Aetate declaration and interfaith dialogue.
The Catholic Church neither believes that God has severed his covenant with the Jews nor that there are two covenants, one for Jews and the other for Christians. The relationship with the Jews remains because God keeps his promises. The old covenant is fulfilled by the new in Jesus Christ. The Church is the New Israel and as such we would reject Zionism. Just as many of the Jews accepted Christ in the ancient church of Jerusalem, we pray that many of our Jewish brothers and sisters will today come to know and love him. The Jews are our elder brethren in faith, the first called, and they are still beloved of God. We read in Romans 11:25-29:
“I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise in your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come out of Zion, he will turn away godlessness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’ In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
While we can argue a movement from the natural religion of Judaism (belief in the one true God) to a supernatural religion in Catholicism (the revelation of the Trinity), we share a common faith patrimony. The Christian Savior will always be the Jewish Messiah. None of this detracts from “Jesus” as the saving name— that none are saved apart from him— that he is our one Mediator and Savior— that none come to the Father except through him. We are redeemed by the saving work of his Cross which is re-presented to us in an unbloody fashion by the Eucharist. The significance of Christ and the sacraments remain what it has always been, but the SSPX declaration would intimate a change where there has been none.
Devaluation of Mary’s Role in Salvation, YES or NO?
While there has been a warning about misunderstanding certain Marian titles, it is still acknowledged that Mary cooperates in a unique way with the redemptive work of her Son. Nothing has changed in our teachings.
No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church – YES or NO or Qualified?
The SSPX profession next makes a subtle nod to Fr. Feeney’s literal interpretation of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” or no salvation outside the Church. Despite SSPX protestations to the contrary, this dogma of faith remains intact. Just as none are saved apart from Christ, the Church as his mystical body is also necessary for salvation. However, the SSPX would reject any nuances to this teaching. This would appreciably leave as damned, all non-Catholic “Christians” as well as all “Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists.” By contrast, we would resist making a verdict and leave ultimate judgment to God regarding those not in formal communion “through no fault of their own.” We would insist that the negative judgment is upon those who die knowing that the Catholic Church is the true Church and still refused to get baptized and join her. There is also ambiguity because of the reformation and Protestant faith communities. If their baptisms are judged as valid then are they not affiliated with the Catholic Church, even if tenuously? Will Jesus renounce those who have faith in him and love him? When the Protestant reformers broke away, they purloined many essential elements of the true Church. Would there not be salvific value to these elements, like baptism and the Bible, for those who were born into these sects? The SSPX says no, “Outside the Roman Catholic Church, and without the profession of Faith that she has always taught, there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.” Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium says yes, clarifying that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, may yet achieve eternal salvation. Ignorance does matter. God is neither capricious nor monstrous in his providence. Any who are saved are saved through the Church. About this there is no debate— where the SSPX and the Vatican part ways is over whether all the saved must be a visible part of the Church during their mortal lives.
Who is the Real Threat to the True Church?
The declaration asserts, “The denial of even a single truth of the Faith destroys faith itself and renders radically impossible all communion with the Catholic Church.” Given the SSPX misinterpretations, made clear by the Vatican, I would concur that the SSPX is not spiritually prepared for full reunion with the Church established by Christ. When they consecrate their illicit bishops, they will enter formal schism and face excommunication. While they may consider themselves to be the true Church, in fact they will stand condemned by their own reasoning— placing themselves outside the Barque of Peter.
The Pope is the Guardian of the Deposit of Faith, YES or NO?
The great commission has never been renounced. Continuity with our traditions has been maintained. The SSPX “doth protest too much.” We give no quarter to false worship and the reformed liturgy is both licit and valid as are all the seven sacraments. The Pope continues his role in history as the guardian of the deposit of faith. Unfortunately, some would wrestle this role away from him.
The Mass is an Unbloody Sacrifice for the Forgiveness of Sins
The Mass remains essentially a sacrifice for atonement or propitiation and yet this does not make it any less a sacred meal where the Lamb of God must be eaten. We would also affirm the real presence of the Eucharist.
We May Not Bless Gays but Should We Hate Them?
Threaded among the many things we have in common are the matters of ambiguity and deliberate misrepresentation. Outreach to gays can mandate no violation of the moral law and it is true that their unions “can in no way be blessed by ministers of the Church. This was recently reaffirmed by Pope Leo XIV. But we have always regularly blessed groups and individuals without interrogations about their state of life and sins. Blessings may be affirmations as over Christian marriages, but they might also be appeals for repentance, conversion and healing. The declaration makes no mention of this.
Should We Rescind Religious Liberty?
The SSPX declaration also makes more of a variable social teaching than I suspect it was supposed to mean. We read: “The submission of institutions and nations, as such, to the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ flows directly from the Incarnation and the Redemption. Therefore, secularism of institutions and nations constitutes an implicit denial of the divinity and universal kingship of Our Lord.” What are we to make of this? The separation of church and state in the United States has allowed the Church to flourish. The right to religious liberty has protected the Church even as it has made space for others to freely exercise in conscience what they believe. Can we ignore a world that has changed around us? What sense would it make to speak of the divine right of kings when there are none? Should our teachings not reflect interaction with the current real world and not one that has disappeared? Many Americans might love the old Mass, but they would not be so happy to see their Protestant neighbors forcibly divested from their churches and forced to worship underground. Ecumenism does not mean we are all the same. It opens doors for Catholic reunion, yes; but it also allows separated brethren (not just heretics) to work together with us for a better world that reflects shared values about justice and charity.
Which Roman Catholicism is Truly Protestant?
The SSPX has long argued against what is seen as the Protestantism of Roman Catholicism. However, maybe they need to look at themselves? Davide Pagliarani’s declaration finishes with, “With the help of Our Lord, we would rather die than renounce them” (the listed articles of faith). I am reminded of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. He said, “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” He concluded, “Here I stand, I can do no other!”
Slaves kneel in prayer before an idol of the pagan war god in Spartan armor.
As a contract priest to the Coast Guard for thirteen years and as a chaplain to the Knights of Columbus for over thirty, I can attest that there is sometimes a confusion in the minds of believers between the virtue of patriotism and the sin of nationalism. True patriots support their country when she is right and correct her when she is wrong. But nationalism is always unhinged and argues instead, “My country, right or wrong!” The distinction often shows itself in language. We are “Catholics in America,” part of a worldwide family that crosses borders. This aids us in appreciating the brotherhood of man. A spirit of nationalism is intimated in the expression, “American Catholics,” as if there is a national church distinct from international believers and even separate from Rome. Given that the current Pope is also an American, there are critics, especially in politics, who are perturbed that he does not subscribe to “America First” in his thinking and preaching. Despite the jargon of the current populism, Americans may be blessed by God, but they are not morally superior to others. The United States had Catholics involved with its beginnings, but in large part was the product of English values and a Protestant mindset. The Bible was given place of honor, but the individual was placed over it, not the Church. Individualism was prized. A desire for separation from the home country and freedom resulted in a revolutionary war. The conflict over the rights of states versus the federal government, along with making people of dark skin into commodities and not full persons, resulted in still another conflict, the civil war. Catholics found themselves mixed up with all this as well, and yes, sometimes infected with a Protestant over a Catholic perspective about things. When she could, the universal Church looked the other way; but there were levels of dissent that could not be excused. We seem to have forgotten that many Catholics came to this country as unwanted and reviled immigrants. Catholic churchmen like Bishop Hughes of New York opposed the public schools because he saw them as efforts to proselytize Catholics. Public schools in the United States, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, frequently employed the King James Version (KJV) Bible as the primary text for reading instruction and moral education. Catholicism was distrusted. Bigots contended that so-called “papists” were conspiring to take over the nation for the Pope. It was a lie of course, but disinformation existed long before there was an internet.
It may be that some of our early worries were well founded because increasing numbers of Catholics sound like these Protestants of old in how they rebuke the Pope and dismiss the bishops of the Church. Indeed, I am shocked that some who currently tout themselves as solid Catholics have compromised their faith by embracing the fundamentalist mindset given place of honor in the Trump Administration. This sect views the state of Israel as the fruit of prophecy, thus negating any rights of Palestinians to their homeland. The Evangelical Protestant perspective in vogue here refashions Christianity into a BOOK religion. This is idolatry because we encounter Christ not in the dead words on a page but in the living Word proclaimed. There is nothing of the Church as “the great mystery” because the sacraments are rejected as sources for grace. They focus upon a rigid Old Testament morality as a model for today. The defense of Israel thus becomes paramount. They are quick to excuse atrocities in Gaza and the systematic destruction of Iran.
A wimpish Congress has largely surrendered its role in governance to executive orders, first in the Biden administration and now with Trump. Subordinates that disagree with the supreme leader or who prove ineffective in fulfilling autocratic demands are quickly dismissed or replaced. Here I am thinking of figures like Pam Bondi, General Randy George, and Carrie Prejean Boller. Boller was fired for stating, “I am a Catholic, and Catholics don’t embrace Zionism.” What she says about the faith is true as the New Israel or Kingdom is not the middle eastern political state, but the universal or world-wide Catholic Church. But as I said, the fundamentalist Protestant has no such notion for the Church as essential for salvation. Boller was roundly condemned as antisemitic and eliminated. Those who speak for our pretentious potentate must pander to incur his favor, either that or to fall upon their swords. Note that everything they say, from news briefings to prayer services, begin with heaping blame upon his predecessor and other enemies and next extolling praise and thanks upon him for his accomplishments. They even make up new awards to pamper his enlarged ego. Everything must be “bigger,” “greater,” and “like nothing before.” It is quite literally, too much.
Catholics should rightly be hesitant to embrace the archaic Protestant ethos which traditionally ruled this nation despite the constitutional separation of church and state. Make no mistake about it, these new Protestants like those of old distrust Catholics. (Note that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a Protestant-only Good Friday service at the Pentagon in-house chapel, specifying that there would be no Catholic services (like stations or veneration of the cross). While the constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion, this restraint is being severely strained, and I would not be surprised if it is challenged. What perplexes me is how these fundamentalists will carve a place for Jews in this proposed Christian state given their political mating with diehard Jewish defenders of Israel? A common hate or indifference for the Moslem or Palestinian (which includes Catholics and other Christians) might wear thin.
The Pope has been the target of “correction” from Karoline Leavitt (a Catholic), Pete Hegseth (a Christian nationalist), and Franklin Graham (a Baptist evangelist). Graham, true to form, cites David in the Old Testament, in defense of what the Pope rejects as prayers for blood. The Pope is concerned that anyone would adopt a diplomacy based upon the threat of military intervention. He is not of the mind that President Donald Trump is specially chosen or elected by God as a new David or even as a son of David, a title that belongs to Jesus Christ. The Holy Father’s position was the whole point of our opposition against Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Ironically, Trump gained office by opposing the military malfeasance of the Democrats. Catholics and others also found appealing his defense of religious liberty. Almost the entire pro-life movement applauded his stance against abortion. Many worried about rising crime rates and the danger of open borders. But throughout, the bishops warned us about the mistreatment of immigrants. Many of us wanted justice, but not devoid of compassion and charity. Despite promises that we would not police the planet, the president has ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of a head of state, collaborated over the destruction of Gaza, bombed Iran and killed its leadership, and now threatens Cuba with demands for regime change. Like the man or not, this administration is on the warpath. Islamic extremists pursue Jihad or holy war. Now evangelicals invoke God in favor of the president’s aggressive policies. Indeed, even worse, Paula White speaks of God and then praises Trump as if he is another Jesus Christ. Enough is enough!
The Pope may be an American, but he is also “Peter” and he governs a people for Christ the world over. The foot-washing on Thursday reminded us that he is “the servant of the servants of God.” He represents the Prince of Peace where “an eye for an eye” was replaced by the Lord who forgives his murderers. Why are we surprised that Pope Leo XIV preaches peace? Pope John Paul II did the same when we invaded Iraq.
Catholic morality views biblical laws through the prism of tradition, natural law, and the guidance of the Magisterium. We are not obliged to follow obsolete Levitical ceremonial or civil laws. We also speak about the theory of just war and proportional force. Military action might sometimes be required, but only in desperation and when diplomacy has failed. The American system is based upon checks and balances that seem to be currently bypassed for political expediency. This is dangerous. How long and far should such go on? Americans have been known, at least in our popular mythology, as on the side of “might for right,” not that of “might makes right.” There is an important difference. Gaza has suffered 169,000 injured (many requiring amputations) and 90,000+ dead (of which 20,000 were children). The current action in Iran has resulted in the deaths of 3,531 people, of which 1,607 were civilians and 244 were children. When politicians and aberrational Protestant clergy thank God for military victories and the death of enemies, why is the Pope such a lone voice in the wilderness shouting, no! Catholics who realize their faith with charity and who pray for the dead should cry out as well. Indeed, true believers among Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others need to speak with one voice for PEACE.
As one who regularly seeks to discern spirits, there was something intensely unsettling about a recent prayer service in Washington orchestrated by Paula White. Might there be something demonic taking place that threatens to spill over to the rest of the country and to infect our churches? Silence as much as wrongful praise might compromise us. I am no YES man, even to lawful authority. While I feel that obedience is the most crucial and most difficult promise a priest makes, my personality or character cringes against blind obedience. It is not in my makeup to join the lines of doting sycophants to any man, no matter how charismatic or popular. Over the years I have periodically gotten into trouble for speaking my mind and failing to toe the line. The most painful incident was when I argued with Cardinal McCarrick over his silence or even praising certain politicians opposed to the sanctity of life. He refused to change about this, saying that we might need them on other issues. I was later disciplined for being outspoken. It wounds me still because I love the Church. We belong to Christ, even when men in the Church fail and disappoint us. We belong to Christ and should not suffer bondage to any party or mere mortal. Too many fail to understand the lesson of the coin, as there can be no divided loyalty. Caesar may have his likeness on a coin, but Christ’s likeness alone must be inscribed upon human hearts. Yes, even Caesar belongs to God. There is no comparison. We must be careful of idolatry in all its devious forms.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prayed at a recent Christian worship service for the military:
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”
This might make a good pagan prayer to the false god Ares or Mars, but it is no prayer to the true God revealed in Jesus Christ. The Holy Father is under attack for his corrective response:
“God rejects the prayers of warmongers. . . This is our God: Jesus, king of peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them. ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood’ (Isaiah 1:15).”
Tradition teaches that Pilate constantly washed his hands, particularly after the death of Christ. He lamented, will I ever get my hands clean? That should again be the question, today.
The SSPX prefer unchanging liturgy and stagnant cut-and dry definitions. And yet, at this crucial time in history, we neither need nor want talking parrots without the basic tools for the give-and-take required in theological reflection and discourse with intellectual giants like Cardinals Robert Sarah and Gerhard Ludwig Müller.
We must be wary of those who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Certain progressives would supplant an oblation to the divine with a fellowship supper and prefer a revolutionary break with past teachings and values. Anachronistic traditionalists would embrace an unchanging liturgy and dogmas reduced to staid definitions that are either disconnected from modernity or attack it head on. Instead of ecumenical outreach the Society is often locked in attack mode and employs old and aggressive proof text apologetics. This will not get us very far. Both the SSPX and the Vatican must take care about who speaks for them in any dialogue. Many of their priests would do poorly with their ingrained resistance. This is not a debate that one must win at all costs. The starting point must be obedience to the Holy See, affirmation of the various liturgies approved, and the acceptance of Vatican II as a genuine ecumenical council. This does not mean that the door is closed to clarifying teachings and reconciling them with previous formulations. When it comes to the brightest minds in favor of the traditional Latin Mass, and who are aware of the other issues, we must turn to learned laymen like Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and Dr. Taylor Marshall. While we might sometimes disagree with them, they would legitimately seek to maintain communion with the living Magisterium. Resolution about the status of liturgy and reconciling Trent with Vatican II would be good for the Church overall, even if the SSPX and other groups should still go into formal schism or their bishops face excommunication.
Every time Pope Leo XIV agrees with Pope Francis on something, the critics go crazy! Here there is opposition to the argument from Pope Francis in DIGNITAS INFINITA that human dignity is an “infinite” value. The concern is that it seems to deify the human creature when only almighty God is truly infinite. It is argued that this compromises Catholic teaching on original sin.
I think a grievous misreading has been made. I may be wrong but I discern shades of Pope John Paul II’s thinking in this, too. Yes, we are are finite creatures. We do not self-exist and we cannot save ourselves. However, there is an ancient notion that elements like the good, the true and the beautiful are perfections of God in which we participate or share in some small measure. Whatever we share can be traced back to God the Creator who has infinite value. Human dignity is viewed on two levels, first that of human creatures born of women into the human family, and second, as regenerated sons and daughters of the Father reborn at the womb of the baptismal font. The latter (spiritual dignity) builds upon the first (ontological dignity). Indeed, sanctifying grace divinizes the person with a share in Christ’s life. While all human life is incommensurate as God’s gift to us; the dignity of the human person is further enhanced by the sacraments. While we are finite, that which God shares of himself is not— basic existence and on top of that eternal life in Christ.
The late Pope Francis taught that the human person possessed an immeasurable or incommensurate worth. This was a major contention of the late Dr. Germain Grisez (1929–2018). He contended for the incommensurability of basic human goods.
Reflexive Goods: Self-integration, Practical Reasonableness, Justice and Friendship, and Religion.
Substantive Goods: Life and Health, Knowledge of Truth, Appreciation of Beauty, and Excellence in Work and Play.
(The basic goods delineated by John Finnis were similar.)
Grisez claimed they are equally good in themselves and cannot be rationally compared. He argued that the basic goods are equally ranked and thus there can be no proportionalism in their regard— you cannot act against one to promote another— there is no lesser evil for a greater good. This becomes foundational for his moral theology on behalf of the sanctity of life and the indissolubility of marriage. Contraception, abortion and euthanasia are entirely removed from the drawing board! Everyone is thus viewed as precious and irreplaceable. Every person has immeasurable worth, even the convict on death row.
Pope Francis broke down dignity in terms of anthropology: The first is “ontological.” Every moment God is keeping us in existence. If he were to forget us for an instant we would cease to exist and be annihilated. Such would be against the divine economy. This value is incommensurate. The second is “moral” and here dignity can be lost through evil acts and sin. This is where original sin and concupiscence come into the picture. The third is “social” and dignity can be violated by oppression and poverty. However, worth remains the same. The fourth is “existential” which refers to a person’s subjective experience of life.
The film seems oblivious to the fact that the conflict is one-and-the-same as that of the Roman empire against the early Church. It is the question as to whether we follow Caesar or the Lord. The courts and the world of politics have no jurisdiction over the faith of the Church. That is where the story should have ended. However, the premise of the film is that the Catholic Church might be compelled to open the priesthood to women by intimidation of the civil legal system. This is not the case. Whatever the state might decide, the Church would refuse to comply, even if it meant persecution and martyrdom. One is reminded of the Church of England that sought to manipulate the Church when a king demanded a divorce. But the Church was willing to allow an entire country to evade its grasp to preserve the meaning of marital fidelity. Like holy orders, marriage is a sacrament of the Church. The Church has the right to administer her sacraments as she feels fit. The jury in the film judges a male-only priesthood as discrimination; but this is not true because priesthood is not a job or an entitlement. Yes, as a vocation it is a calling, but just like the nature of our saving faith, it is both personal and corporate. Any calling from the candidate must be affirmed by the Church, notably the bishop and those placed in charge of formation. Priesthood is a gratuity and no one can demand that gift.
The film would intimate that our religious liberty comes entirely from the state, but our founding documents merely acknowledge that such freedom comes from God, himself. No judge and jury, particularly made up of non-Catholics and/or those unsympathetic to Catholicism have any say about the Church. Indeed, even the laity that constitute the “sensus fidelium” must live and share the tenets of our holy religion. Pope John Paul II definitively answered the question about women’s ordination, explaining that the Church has no power to change the practice of ordaining only males. Short of any new miraculous revelation, the Church is bound to keep the tradition. Responding to the challenge of stereotypes, the pagan world had many priestesses and yet the new dispensation of Christ that fulfilled the promises of Judaism maintained male leadership among the apostles. Our Lord was shown to break convention as when he spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. She would become a prophetess to her people, but not a priest. The Blessed Virgin Mary was the holiest woman to ever walk the earth and yet while she takes a priestly stance at the foot of the Cross, she is entrusted to the apostle John who was a sharer in Christ’s ministerial priesthood. While all of us participate in a baptismal priesthood (given that sacrifice defines our faith and charity), the ordained priesthood is reserved to men, and not all men, but a select few. If the state were to assume authority over our ministers, then it could just as likely demand married and divorced men and women or even overt homosexuals. But our sacraments are not subject to the fads of changing times or the capricious desires of men and women. Indeed, even if we should want to ordain women, we cannot do so.
The reasoning of the Church is clear and sound. While the Church can mitigate disciplines like celibacy in specific cases, the matter of gender is no accidental that can be brushed aside. The theology of the body focuses upon gender as being constitutive of our deepest identity and personhood. Just as only a man can be a father and only a woman can be a mother, only a man can be a priest. If we should attempt to ordain females and it should prove against the will of Christ, then we would forfeit both the sacrament of holy orders and the Mass. There would be no more Eucharistic real presence of the risen Christ. There would be no more unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. The oblation and banquet that renews our covenant with Christ would disappear with the loss of apostolic succession.
A male-only priesthood is no injustice and not chauvinism. The house of the Church is that of a family with a given structure. Would you allow strangers to come into your house and tell you how to run your home? Children obey parents, not the other way around. The objective of this film would introduce dysfunction into the home of faith, the Church. Where there was a faint promise of teaching on this subject, the film gives a simplistic and one-sided view. Even the churchmen are so terribly caricatured that they are hard for knowing believers to watch. The nun in the movie might believe but she is also a rebellious daughter. Her journey will likely take her into Anglicanism where they have priestesses that go through the motions but a faith that compromises to secular modernity at every turn.
The Gospel this evening is the presentation of the Beatitudes by our Lord. It is essentially a guide toward holiness or sainthood. As Catholics we ordinarily ponder the men and women canonized by the Church. Here at Holy Family, we even celebrate a monthly saint, requesting intercession and seeking our own emulation. But in truth, there are far more saints than those few on any list that we might keep. The saints of God are listed in heaven. While we struggle with our sinfulness, how many living saints have we encountered over the years? I think of all the good Catholics that helped their fellow man and were faithful to the sacraments. There are likely some in this Church as I speak who are very close to God. Sainthood is not an unreachable goal. By God’s grace, we can all know sanctification and holiness of life. It is the one goal we have in life. Nothing else matters other than becoming holy and eventually finding ourselves with the Lord in his heavenly kingdom. Years ago, I had the opportunity to visit the mount upon which Jesus preached the Beatitudes. There was a small but beautiful chapel there. Just as our Lord instructed his apostles, today there is a seminary on that hill where men are prepared for the priesthood. What do these benedictions teach us?
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
The word for poor here is (’anāwîm), taken from the Old Testament it refers to the destitute who have nothing but God. It came to infer the qualities of lowliness or a profound humility. The addition of the words “in spirit” are added by Matthew to clarify that being materially poor would not necessarily save anyone. We know that in our own society, poverty is often a catalyst for jealousy and crime. Hearts can be poisoned by resentment toward the rich or because of struggle. Disappointment can twist or corrupt the soul. Poor people often suffer from the rich man’s dreams. By contrast, poverty in spirit might be voluntary, as with religious who embrace poverty for the kingdom. Christian poverty also implies acceptance in whatever comes. We see ourselves as unworthy and all that we have as a gift. It also implies generosity. We would not want to be well off at the cost of a neighbor who is homeless, hungry, naked and afraid. Poverty in spirit means that we might have things, but we would not allow the things to have us. True richness is not found in material things but in standing in right relationship with God. We are all the poor man or woman, dependent upon God.
“Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.”
Many question God because of the problem of pain or suffering. This blessing would turn that around. We should not get angry or run away from God because of loss or a hard life. Rather, we should trust that God will make all things right. This implies not only that God will give comfort, but that as his stewards we should try to bring a healing presence to the pain of others. The ultimate response of God to pain is solidarity with Christ in his passion and death. God is present with us, and we must be present to one another. We are together in this. We are not alone or abandoned.
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.”
Just as in the story of salvation, the Jewish promise of Jerusalem and a land of their own was only made possible by the power of God. Human strength of arms would always fall short. However, if we keep the covenant, God will keep us. As Christians, this land refers to the kingdom of Christ, realized in the Church and in the promise of heaven. We must acknowledge our profound dependence upon God.
“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.”
This benediction gives root to the Church’s teachings on social justice. We yearn for a world where the right prevails and evil is thwarted. Unfortunately, then and now, there is so much injustice and prejudice. Good people suffer and the bad seem to flourish. Ordinarily we understand righteousness as moral conduct that conforms to divine law or God’s will. Here it means something more. Righteousness is literally the saving power of God. We cannot make ourselves good, only God can do that. Only the Lord can save us. We cannot save ourselves. We are sinners who need a Savior. We must submit to God’s plan of salvation. Jesus is faithful to this mission from the Father, unto the Cross.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”
It is as in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” It is only by forgiving others that we open ourselves to divine mercy.
“Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.”
Just as one had to be ritually pure to worship God in the temple, our Lord takes it one further and teaches that we must be clean of heart or pure to see God in heaven. We must become perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. This appreciation is behind our understanding of penance, absolution and prayer for the poor souls.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”
Ultimately this peace is about more than avoiding hostility or violence. It means a radical imitation of Christ. Our Lord would have us joined or united with him in how we confront earthly power and injustice. The peace of Christ demands trust and sublime courage in facing the mystery of evil. This unity is in terms of adoption into the family of God.
“Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
We will know that we are on God’s side because the world will target us as signs of contradiction. If there is no tension with the world and no opposition, it means one of two things: either we have converted the world (which is unlikely) or that the world has compromised us.
“Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.”
I suspect this last beatitude is where our Lord lost some of his disciples. Who wants to be insulted or persecuted or even murdered. We naturally turn away from such prospects. And yet, as a parable people, we are to find joy in such adversity. It is not because we love suffering or pain, that would be sadistic. No, the overriding reality in this scenario is that we walk with the Lord. Whatever the world takes away. God can give back many times over. The natural man must give way to the supernatural man. There is a crown in heaven waiting for the saints who have followed the Lamb.
I read with interest the article by Gregory DiPippo about Brian Holdsworth’s video on the Church’s liturgies. A position is critiqued that argues that it does not matter which liturgical form is followed, either ordinary (reformed) or extraordinary (TLM). But in all honesty, I know of no learned believers who hold such a position. Note that the question here is not whether either liturgy (particularly the reformed ritual) is valid, licit, or spiritually effective. Catholics in good standing hold that the Mass in either form is a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, makes Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament, participates in the marriage banquet of heaven, and is an oblation for propitiation or for the satisfaction of sin. Either form constitutes Catholic worship, although one form or the other (and even how it is conducted) impacts upon what is communicated as well as to aesthetic tastes. The tension is real because both sides in the debate feel it does matter which form is followed, at least to them.
As a priest who is familiar with the older ritual, but has always said the reformed liturgy, my preference is for the somewhat streamlined liturgy of Paul VI. However, I can lament the reduction of certain beautiful prayers, especially from the revised offertory. Having admitted this, I believe in the freedom acknowledged by the late Pope Benedict XVI in granting liberty for priests and communities to celebrate the TLM. The two forms side by side might provide for deeper insight into any future reform. Indeed, looking back, it is likely that such a strategy might have borne better fruit than the reductionist intervention imposed after the council. While what is done is done, we can pursue a more gradual organic development of the Mass in the days to come. I suspect something of the blueprint in the English-speaking world might be the providential inclusion of the Anglican returnees in their three Personal Ordinariates. Their missal savors tradition, sacred worship-language, and a profound respect for the Roman Canon.
Why does a sizable remnant prefer the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) or Mass of Pius V? Advocates cite its perceived reverence or sense of mystery (especially with chants, Latin and sacred silence), historical continuity, and theological clarity. The concise rubrics give order to a worship that highlights the transcendent.
Those who prefer the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) or the Mass of Paul VI list the following: more complete biblical selections, renewed emphasis given to the homily, the restored intercessions or bidding prayers, clearer emphasis on community participation, an understandable vernacular, and an effort to connect with modern believers.
More than just subjective, the differences between the liturgies are real and objective, However, are they worth alienating whole groups in the Church? Traditional believers who argue that the reformed or “new” Mass is dangerous and refuse to attend are not being helpful and probably had a part to play in the renewed suppression of the TLM. Those who attend the reformed liturgy are also guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by maligning an ancient Mass that formed and enriched the many saints.
The article sides with the advocates for the TLM and views the reformed liturgy as an orphaned child, belonging not to Vatican II and only vaguely to the Church’s patrimony. Pope Paul VI is faulted for placing his stamp of approval upon it. The author of the articles writes, “If we understand this, we can see why it is possible to question and even reject the modern rites without being disloyal to the Council.” Councils aside, popes view themselves as the Roman Rite. The late Pope Francis thought so for sure. Priests of the ancient Church imitated the papal liturgy and made it their own. If this is the case, can we really claim loyalty and reject outright the rite of the last six popes? We may each firmly believe we are right, but regardless of this, how do we move forward? I would stop worrying about the extremist fanatics and ponder the needs of the good people in the pews. If they love and feel enriched by the old Mass, then let them have it. If people prefer the new, and the celebration is reverent and sacred, then let them have their worship. Neither are second-class or bad Catholics.
We can discuss and debate the elements of liturgy. We can judge one as superior to another, or at least better in-tuned to our spiritual character. There are many rites of Mass within Catholicism. The Roman Rite is currently divided between the Traditional Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo, and (to a lesser extent) that of the Personal Ordinariate (former Anglicans). All liturgy should be reverent, giving emphasis to the sacred and focus upon the Almighty. Accidentals do matter. But the substance should not be eclipsed. There is a bottom line but all liturgies are not the same. Many today judge the Traditional Latin Mass by beautiful Gregorian chants, mysterious Latin which is the language of the Church, organized ritual and meaningful sacramentals, etc. But in days of old, there were no microphones on altars, priest often rushed through the prayers at machine-gun speed (especially on weekdays), low Masses lacked music or it was poorly done, homilies were skipped, and we simply said our rosaries or personal prayers during Mass. People grew spiritually but there was sometimes a disconnect. It was hoped that the Novus Ordo would bridge this, but problems remain and may have grown worse. Many today are quick to judge the Novus Ordo, not by reverent renderings, but by clown and puppet shows or with liturgical dancers or whatever. But these are the crazy aberrations.
My ministry is about the forgiveness of sins and helping people to get into heaven. That is really what the Church should focus upon. The Mass and the Eucharistic Christ are essential. Without the Mass, we will spiritually starve. Without the Mass, we cannot render the worship that Almighty God demands. If I were to reject a form of the Mass authorized by the Church and her popes, then my ministry would end and my flock would suffer spiritual starvation. A priest cannot reject a form of the liturgy that he is morally committed to offer. This being the case, how can any of the flock reject that Mass? I am only a poor simple parish priest in the trenches. I will leave it to better minds to ponder the important accidentals of Catholic liturgy. Meanwhile, I will daily approach the altar, knowing that I am a sharer in the Lord’s priesthood, and with the epiclesis and words of consecration, transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
My evangelical friends delight in distributing pamphlets that urge all they meet to make “a saving faith profession in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.” This usually comes along with a few essential questions posed to Catholics about their state of faith. The believer might answer that he is a baptized Catholic who partakes of the sacraments. Frequently this response is rebuffed because the non-Catholic questioner has little or no place in his faith system for sacraments. A follow-up query is, “If you were to die right now, where would you expect to spend eternity?” Learned Catholics might say “purgatory,” an answer sure to set the evangelical off because he already presumes Catholics are destined for hell and he can allow for no purification after death or prayer for the dead. His faith ignores the history or tradition of faith and any escape from stark individualism. His notion of “church” is one of fellowship but not of sanctification.
The heart of the Church are the sacraments instituted by Christ. These divine mysteries have undergone development but in one form or another were celebrated from the earliest days of the new dispensation. Indeed, the Mass is a command performance given to us by the Lord. The redemptive Cross and paschal mystery of Christ is remembered and made present. We find ourselves at the sacred oblation of Calvary where the Lord Jesus is substantially present and “really” active for our sake. He is the one high priest and the saving victim. Baptism as the gateway to the sacraments stems from the Lord’s demand to his apostles at the Great Commission.
Apologetics arguably would have the informed Catholic immediately assault the simplistic assumptions of the non-Catholic. Indeed, the fundamentalist missionary at this point often fully unveils his anti-Catholic posture. But given poor catechesis and lackluster devotion, most Catholics prove lacking in making any kind of suitable reply. Some will fall prey to the traps laid before them and accept the hollow and bigoted negative assessments of their holy faith. Those that will try to argue often run out of steam. They find themselves on the offensive but only armored with a faith based upon authority and not directly upon the truths of Scripture and Catechism.
As I said, the gullible might allow their faith to be errantly taught to them from a source hostile and bigoted to Roman Catholic. False teachings emerged either from outright ignorance or deception. I would urge those with a superficial faith-understanding not to engage such outreach ministers. Those trained to recruit Catholics are often given a series of religion questions to undermine the faith of those targeted. They have memorized biblical proof texts. Sadly, biblical quotes are taken out of context and are often misinterpreted. We must not relinquish the parameters of the discussion. Ideally, we should have the same stamina and desire to make converts as our challenger. How should we proceed in such situations if one is a knowledgeable Catholic?
First, realize that you and the fundamentalist speak a very different faith language. Do not surrender the upper ground. This is how I respond at the very top of the conversation: “Yes, I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, not just personally but corporately within the context of the Church that Christ directly founded upon his rock Peter and given to the apostles.” Second, if they should ask about our eternal destiny, make it clear, “Trusting in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, I have every reason to HOPE for a share in eternal life with God in heaven.” Remember, even should we pass through purgatory, all the poor souls are destined for paradise.
Third, if they should emphasize the need for a verbal faith profession, explain that you affirm Christ and your belief in the Mass and in a weekly creedal profession. If they debate this, I would explain that “once saved, always saved” has been proven repeatedly to be false. Even Protestant ministers who claimed “Jesus” have fallen and committed the most devastating sins. While the faith of a few might have been counterfeit, we take them for their word that they believe in Jesus and his saving works. But real faith can die. One must remain steadfast in faith.
Fourth, I would ask the would-be missionary a question, “what is faith?” It is amazing how many people stumble on this matter. Faith is not magic. Too many regard it as did Martin Luther, simply as a juridical imputation. The argument is that we remain sinners, but that Jesus stands between us and God the Father. When the Father looks upon us, he only sees his Son and gives us a share in his Son’s reward. But Jesus speaks in the Bible of being born again— that repentance and conversion must be effective and genuine— that we must be changed. We must be holy as God is holy. A saving faith in Christ is transformative. We can still stumble but baptism has configured us to Christ. The sacrament (water baptism in the name of the Trinity) is essential. We are incorporated into the mystical body of Christ and into the family of faith. This is a royal family, and we enter the divine kingdom. Christ is King and Mary is our Queen Mother. We become adopted sons and daughters to the Father, children of Mary and kin to Christ. Sin is washed away, original and personal. We are granted sanctifying grace. Our Lord gives us the sacrament of penance so that we as sinners (who believe in Jesus) might become saints. The Bible makes the dynamics of faith quite clear. I would tell the missionary who targets Catholics, “We are saved as members of a new People of God, the Church. This personal and communal faith must be realized in loving obedience.” The two-fold commandment of love toward God and neighbor comes from the mouth of Jesus. The commandments given the first people called by God have not lost their binding force. We must realize or manifest a saving faith through works of charity. We cannot save ourselves. Works have value because “greater is he who lives in me than he who lives in the world.” If Christ is alive in us, then his works will always have saving or meritorious value. We must be transformed into the likeness of Christ. This is made possible by sanctifying grace. We are saved, not by faith alone but by grace alone.
Faith in the Lord is everything. There is no such thing as a part time Christian. Ours is a jealous God. The posture of the creature to the Creator is one of humble submission and dependence. We must surrender ourselves to him and to his service. Prayer and the sacred liturgy allow us to join the angels of heaven in their celestial praise of God as Holy, Holy, Holy.
Maybe I am handicapped by chronic cynicism? But I am often wary of those who criticize others about how they understand justice when their own appreciation would likely not muster close inspection. The word “justice” like “love” and “rights” has been hackneyed in every possible way, as well as assumed into the ranting politics of left, right and all stances in-between. The Black Lives movement clamors for justice against racism and power. Radical feminists define justice as liberation, not only from males but from their own biology and fertility. Militant Zionists demand a justice for past Jewish martyrs with a retributive justice hard to distinguish from revenge. Marxists demand a one-sided variation of justice reminiscent of Robin Hood, where the people “rise up” to steal from the rich (the bourgeoisie) and give to the poor workers (the proletariat). [In practice a party dictator takes power and all bets about justice are off the table.] While American citizens can rightly demand border security, what becomes of justice without sufficient compassion or mercy, particularly when the poor and the persecuted are lumped with criminals and the gangs from drug cartels? Can a society justly take the lives of the guilty in capital punishment when it wrongly strips the innocent unborn of any right to life? [The late Pope John Paul II said “no,” that any jurisdiction to deprive another of life under the banner of justice is forfeited in a culture of death.]
It is hard for a civilization to appreciate the cardinal virtue of justice when it is saturated with a parade of vices. While quick to judge, many people literally do not know what it means to be good or what constitutes the “right thing.” I suspect that is why we see the vast multiplication of surveillance cameras. Increasing numbers of people feel it is okay to steal, so long as they are not caught. Intimidation has replaced the virtues.
What do we as human beings have coming to us and what is “due” or owed to others? This varies from person to person. Business and general exchange of services relates to commutative justice. The employer should pay his employee an adequate wage. The employee needs to be diligent in providing serves or goods for which he or she is remunerated. Distributive justice is directed toward our relationship with a community. We all have equal rights to the same freedoms and general opportunities. But we do not all have the same resources, talents or obligations. This form of justice respects proportionality. Each person in a society does his or her part for the whole. Finally, there is what we call social justice. Here we often find a conflict between legal definitions and what we regard as just according to both divine positive law and natural law.
Turning to the Church, we need to cease mimicking the polarity that we find in partisan civil politics. Otherwise, we violate the peace of Christ that we celebrate at the Eucharist. This peace is focused upon our unity in Jesus Christ. How can we possibly appeal to those outside the Church for either evangelization or for social justice while our own believers are at each other’s throats in divergence from one another. We should not compromise the Gospel of Life by making too little of abortion or making too much of capital punishment. There need be no conflict about preserving secure borders and in proportional justice to illegals, distinguishing between desperate families who love the promise of America and the criminal invaders who should be expelled or punished. Neither side should use the justice system to attack political enemies. All should demonstrate a religious respect for the Holy Father, instead of a nasty knee-jerk criticism about the role of women, gays, environmental stewardship or various liturgical concerns. I really hate the current politicization of faith. We should not be quick to judge or condemn the Catholic character of men and women who voted either for Harris or Trump or someone else in the last election. Neither candidate articulates nor manifests the full kerygma as we understand it. No Catholic should allow his or her party platform or agenda to supplant the demands of the Gospel. The moral values of the Gospel are what they are. We should all seek to be good Catholics, keeping the commandments and loving God and our neighbor. We should exhibit a modicum of human respect, even when differences of opinion are severe. This must be the stance from both authority and from the rank-and-file. We need to be contrite about past ridicule and careful not to mock others or to use incendiary language. It is far better to build bridges than to burn them down.
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 